Re: The actual truth is that ...

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

On 10/12/24 12:07 PM, olcott wrote:

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:

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:

>

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.

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 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.
>
>

 Which has one meaning when applied to an arguement, and another when applied to a statement.
 That you don't understand this doesn't make it wrong, but your lack of understanding it does make you dumb.

I only ever wanted to actual truth.
Can you provide a reference that says there can
be such a thing as an invalid premise?
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer