Re: The actual truth is that ...

Am Mon, 14 Oct 2024 04:53:15 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 10/14/2024 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-10-13 12:49:01 +0000, Richard Damon said:

On 10/12/24 8:11 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/12/2024 3:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/12/24 1:36 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/12/2024 12:13 PM, joes wrote:

Am Sat, 12 Oct 2024 11:07:29 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 10/12/2024 9:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/12/24 6:17 AM, olcott wrote:

On 10/12/2024 3:13 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-10-11 21:13:18 +0000, joes said:

Am Fri, 11 Oct 2024 12:22:50 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 10/11/2024 12:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/11/24 11:06 AM, olcott wrote:

On 10/11/2024 9:54 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/11/24 10:26 AM, olcott wrote:

On 10/11/2024 8:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/11/24 8:19 AM, olcott wrote:

On 10/11/2024 6:04 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/10/24 9:57 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/10/2024 8:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/10/24 6:19 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/10/2024 2:26 PM, wij wrote:

On Thu, 2024-10-10 at 17:05 +0000, Alan Mackenzie
wrote:

When the behavior of DDD emulated by HHH is the
measure then:

But since it isn't, your whole argument falls
apart.

Ah a breakthrough.

And an admission that you are just working on a lie.

Perhaps you are unaware of how valid deductive
inference works. You can
disagree that the premise to my reasoning is true.
By changing my premise as the basis of your rebuttal
you commit the strawman error.

So, how do you get from the DEFINITION of Halting being
a behavior of the actual machine, to something that can
be talked about by a PARTIAL emulation with a different
final behavior.

My whole point in this thread is that it is incorrect
for you to say that my reasoning is invalid on the basis
that you do not agree with one of my premises.

The issue isn't that your premise is "incorrect", but it
is INVALID,
as it is based on the redefinition of fundamental words.

Premises cannot be invalid.

Of course they can be invalid,

It is a type mismatch error. Premises cannot be invalid.

So "af;kldsanflksadhtfawieohfnapio" is a valid premise?

"valid" is a term-of-the-art of deductive logical inference. When
the subject is deductive logical inference one cannot substitute
the common meaning for the term-of-the-art meaning.
This is a fallacy of equivocation error.

So "af;kldsanflksadhtfawieohfnapio" is an invalid premise?

"invalid" referring to a premise within the terms-of-the-art of
deductive logical inference is a type mismatch error use of the
term.
One could correctly say that a premise is untrue because it is
gibberish. One can never correctly say that a premise is invalid
within the terms-of-the-art.

No, untrue isn't the normal term of art, except it tri- (or other
multi-) valued logics.

Within ordinary deductive logic there seems to be no such thing as an
invalid premise. Mathematical logic may do this differently.

Nope, You just don't understand logic. Within Formal Logic there is a
concept of an invalid premise, being a premise that can not have a
logical interpretation.
Part of the problem is you don't seem to understand that words DO have
multiple meanings, and you need to use the right one for the context.

The meaning of invalid is basically the same: a thing is invalid if it
is not what it is claimed or required to be. The differences in
definitions are just adaptations to the details of different
requirements.

A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all
of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is
unsound.

Whatever. Your premise is false, so your conclusion at least cannot be
derived, even if your argument were valid. You were just hiding behind
the meaning of "valid" and not actually explaining why your premise
should be right. You could have said so much earlier instead of this
sidetrack.

--
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.