Re: The actual truth is that ...

On 2024-10-11 20:54:28 +0000, olcott said:

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:

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.

 Premises cannot ever be invalid, this is the misuse of a
technical term of the art proving that you are clueless.

The common language meaning of "invalid" is not incompatible with the
meaning of "premise" so a premise can be invalid. The word "invalid"
is a term of art when used about an inference or a set or sequence of
inferences but not when used about a premise.
--
Mikko