Re: The philosophy of computation reformulates existing ideas on a new basis ---

On 11/3/24 8:21 AM, olcott wrote:

On 11/3/2024 3:29 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-11-02 11:19:49 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 11/2/2024 3:43 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-11-01 12:10:41 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 11/1/2024 5:40 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-11-01 00:12:37 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 10/31/2024 6:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/31/24 7:43 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/31/2024 6:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/31/24 12:12 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/31/2024 11:03 AM, Andy Walker wrote:

On 31/10/2024 11:01, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-10-30 11:17:45 +0000, Andy Walker said:

On 30/10/2024 03:50, Jeff Barnett wrote:

You may have noticed that the moron responded to your message in
less than 10 minutes. Do you think he read the material before
responding? A good troll would have waited a few hours before
answering.

    I doubt whether Peter is either a moron or a troll.

Does it really matter? If he falsely pretends to be a moron or a liar
I may politely pretend to believe.

>
     It's not exactly polite to describe Peter in any of these ways!
Entirely personally, I see no reason to do so in any case. He is quite
often impolite in response to being called a "stupid liar" or similar,
but that's understandable.  He is no worse than many a student in terms
of what he comprehends;  his fault lies in [apparently] believing that he
has a unique insight.

>
When what I say is viewed within the perspective of
the philosophy of computation I do have new insight.
>
When what I say is viewed within the assumption that
the current received view of the theory of computation
is inherently infallible then what I say can only be
viewed as incorrect.

>
So, are you willing to state that you are admitting that nothing you might come up with has any bearing on the original halting problem because you are working in a new framework?
>

>
I am admitting one of two things:
(1) Everyone has misconstrued the original halting problem
as not applying to the behavior actually specified by the
actual input finite string.

>
Which is just a lie, so you are just admitting to not knowing what the facts are.
>

>
It can't possibly be a lie because I am not even asserting
it as a truth only a possible truth of two possible truths.

>
A false assertion is a lie even if nobody asserts it.

>
Not at all. The base meaning of {lie} requires intentional
deception.

>
That may be its base meaning but the full meaning includes
all false statements. The statement itself does not change
when someone states it so there is no clear advantage in
saying that the statement was not a lie until someone stated
it.

>
It is deception to apply the term {lie} to any expression
of language without qualifying that {intentional deception}
it not meant only {falsity} is meant.

>
In order to say anything about intention one must say something
obout something other than the statement itself: the author of
the statement. To require that a sentence of the form X is Y
shall be interpreted as an assertion about something other than
X is not reasonable semantics. Of course natural language
semantics is often far from reasonable when the purpose is
other than serious discussion.
>

 Don't call anything a lie when you do not mean intentional
deception or you yourself are the only liar.
 

Nope, YOU are the liar when you make that statement, as it is untrue, and you should know it.
Sorry, you are just proving that you are nothing but a pathological liar.