Sujet : Re: The actual truth is that ...
De : richard (at) *nospam* damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 11. Oct 2024, 15:54:10
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <1071eb58637e27c9b2b99052ddb14701a147d23a@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
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:
Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:
On 2024-10-09 19:34:34 +0000, Alan Mackenzie said:
>
Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> wrote:
On 10/8/24 8:49 AM, Andy Walker wrote:
... after a short break.
>
Richard -- no-one sane carries on an extended discussion with
someone they [claim to] consider a "stupid liar". So which are you?
Not sane? Or stupid enough to try to score points off someone who is
incapable of conceding them? Or lying when you describe Peter? You
must surely have better things to do. Meanwhile, you surely noticed
that Peter is running rings around you.
>
In other words, you don't understand the concept of defense of the truth.
>
Maybe, but continuously calling your debating opponent a liar, and doing
so in oversized upper case, goes beyond truth and comes perilously close
to stalking.
>
Calling a liar a liar is fully justified. I don't know how often it
needs be done but readers of a liar may want to know that they are
reading a liar.
>
We know Peter Olcott has lied in things that matter. However, I believe
his continual falsehoods are more a matter of delusion than mendacity.
As Mike Terry has said, OP's intellectual capacity is low. Calling him
a liar in virtually every post is, I think, unwarranted.
>
It detracts from the substance of your posts, and makes
them, for me at least, thoroughly unpleasant to read.
>
You probably needn't read them.
>
As I said, I mostly don't - which is a pity, since Richard Damon often
posts stuff worth reading.
>
As soon you find out that they repeat the same over and over, neither
correcting their substantial errors nor improving their arguments you
have read enough.
>
-- Mikko
>
olcott deliberately lies (he knows what is told, he choose to distort). olcott
>
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
>
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.
That is not even the way that deductive inference works.
Deductive inference STARTS with KNOW CORRECT premises, not assumptions.
You aren't allowed to redefine terms, and any logic based on doing so is just invalid.
You can create a "new" system with some new assumptions or definition, but then you need to be honest about doing so.
Since it seems your definitions do not match those used in the theories you are claiming to be refuting, you are just proving that you claims are lies.
For you to state that I am a liar in ridiculously large letters
on the basis that you disagree with one of my premises shows both
incorrect reasoning on your part as well as a woefully inadequate
degree of professional decorum.
But you ARE a liar, since you claim to be talking about one thing, but use meanings incompatible with that thing.
If you want to talk about some other system basis, you can go ahead and do so as I have mentioned many time.
The key is that to do so, you need to first fully define what you are doing, and that means if you start by changing the meaning of some terms, EVERYTHING derived from the old meaning needs to be discarded, and rederived.
Something you seem incapable of doing, because you fundamentally don't understand how logic works.
And the Richer Petard Horror Show resumes ...
Re: And the Richer Petard Horror Show resumes ...
