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

On 11/4/24 9:13 AM, olcott wrote:

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.
>

 When someone says that a statement is a lie and they
only mean that it is false then they are a liar because
they are intending to deceive.

No, because one of the definition of a lie *IS* just a statement that is false.
Your statement is clearly a statement to decive, since you know the other definition exist, and thus you show yourself to be a BLANTANT liar, not just a pathological liar,

 To say this without intending to deceive they would say
that the statement is a lie(unintentionally false statement).
 In other words they should have just said it was "false"
to begin with if they did not intend to deceive.
 

No, it is a lie to say a false statement where it is only by a reckless disregard for the truth that you think it might be true. That is what is called pathological lying.