Re: The actual truth is that ...

On 10/12/24 8:18 PM, olcott wrote:

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

On 10/12/24 3:21 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/12/2024 2:00 PM, joes wrote:

Am Sat, 12 Oct 2024 12:36:03 -0500 schrieb olcott:

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:

>

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.

Back to the topic: your premise that the measure of the behaviour of DDD
is the emulation of it done by HHH is wrong.
>

>
I didn't say it exactly that way. Richard thinks that the
way you say it makes a difference. I don't take the time
to pay any attention to any other way to say it than the
way that I did say it.

>
In other words, you ADMIT that you may have said it incorrectly, and when I corrected you, your erroneously said I lied, rather than accept the correction.
>

 Not at all. I spend many hundreds of hours making sure
that the exact way that I say key point is exactly correct.

Then why do you keep on revising the wording if you spent enough time to get it right the first time?
Seems you don't understand the meaning of CORRECT?
Why can't you admit your first versions were, in fact, incorrect?
WHy can't you admit that you current version has problem, when they are pointed out?
Simple answer, you don't undetstand the difference between correct and incorrect.

 To say that HHH is unable to emulate DDD so that DDD reaches
is return instruction is like saying that people are limited
in that no one can correctly calculate the radius of a square.

Right, due to the nature of the problem, it is impossible for HHH to emulate DDD to its end.
That doesn't mean that DDD can not be emulated to its end, or that DDD is non-halting, so it is impossible for HHH to be correct in calling it non-halting when it in fact is Halting.
Your attempts to just redefine what that means just shows you have basic misunderstanding about how Formal Logic works.

 

>
The only one here besides me that seems to understand the
actual software engineering aspects of this is Mike.

>
Nope
>

>
Everyone else here seems to have no deeper understanding
than learn-by-rote from CS textbook.
>
>

>
Nope, just shows your stupidity.

 That you would say it that way proves your woefully
deficient professional decorum.

If you were a professional, I would give you decorum.
I tried giving you decorum, and you then just insulted me.
That means you think it is right to insult people, so that gives me the permission to insult you back.
I gave you the option to have you end the insults by agreeing to actually answer the errors pointed out, and not just repeat the error, but I guess you realized that that wouldn't give you anything to say, since you have no rebuttal for the errors, and you know that.

 If other people do actually understand software engineering
then they can prove this the same same way that Mike did.
 

What, by sayng somethng that you can twist to take as agreeing to your lies?
Sorry, I don't fall for that.