Liste des Groupes | Revenir à c theory |
On 10/12/24 8:18 PM, olcott wrote:I keep revising the wording because I am not infallible.On 10/12/2024 3:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:Then why do you keep on revising the wording if you spent enough time to get it right the first time?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:Back to the topic: your premise that the measure of the behaviour of DDD"invalid" referring to a premise within the terms-of-the-art ofSo "af;kldsanflksadhtfawieohfnapio" is an invalid premise?"valid" is a term-of-the-art of deductive logical inference. When theSo "af;kldsanflksadhtfawieohfnapio" is a valid premise?It is a type mismatch error. Premises cannot be invalid.Of course they can be invalid,Premises cannot be invalid.The issue isn't that your premise is "incorrect", but it isMy whole point in this thread is that it is incorrect for youSo, how do you get from the DEFINITION of Halting being aPerhaps you are unaware of how valid deductive inferenceAnd an admission that you are just working on a lie.Ah a breakthrough.When the behavior of DDD emulated by HHH is the measureBut since it isn't, your whole argument falls apart.
then:
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.
behavior of the actual machine, to something that can be
talked about by a PARTIAL emulation with a different final
behavior.
to say that my reasoning is invalid on the basis that you do
not agree with one of my premises.
INVALID,
as it is based on the redefinition of fundamental words.
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.
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.
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.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.