Re: The philosophy of computation reformulates existing ideas on a new basis ---

On 11/1/24 8:10 AM, olcott wrote:

On 11/1/2024 5:40 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-11-01 00:12:37 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 10/31/2024 6:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/31/24 7:43 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/31/2024 6:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/31/24 12:12 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/31/2024 11:03 AM, Andy Walker wrote:

On 31/10/2024 11:01, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-10-30 11:17:45 +0000, Andy Walker said:

On 30/10/2024 03:50, Jeff Barnett wrote:

You may have noticed that the moron responded to your message in
less than 10 minutes. Do you think he read the material before
responding? A good troll would have waited a few hours before
answering.

    I doubt whether Peter is either a moron or a troll.

Does it really matter? If he falsely pretends to be a moron or a liar
I may politely pretend to believe.

>
     It's not exactly polite to describe Peter in any of these ways!
Entirely personally, I see no reason to do so in any case.  He is quite
often impolite in response to being called a "stupid liar" or similar,
but that's understandable.  He is no worse than many a student in terms
of what he comprehends;  his fault lies in [apparently] believing that he
has a unique insight.

>
When what I say is viewed within the perspective of
the philosophy of computation I do have new insight.
>
When what I say is viewed within the assumption that
the current received view of the theory of computation
is inherently infallible then what I say can only be
viewed as incorrect.

>
So, are you willing to state that you are admitting that nothing you might come up with has any bearing on the original halting problem because you are working in a new framework?
>

>
I am admitting one of two things:
(1) Everyone has misconstrued the original halting problem
as not applying to the behavior actually specified by the
actual input finite string.

>
Which is just a lie, so you are just admitting to not knowing what the facts are.
>

>
It can't possibly be a lie because I am not even asserting
it as a truth only a possible truth of two possible truths.

>
A false assertion is a lie even if nobody asserts it.
>

 Not at all. The base meaning of {lie} requires intentional
deception. If you don't mean that base meaning when everyone
else will take it as the base meaning then calling something
a "lie" were no intention is meant is itself a deception.

No, the BASE meaning is that it is a falsehood.
The idea of intention was a later addition to the meaning.
Lie, in this sense comes from the Middle English "lien" which just mean to tell a falsehood.

 Proposing a hypothetical possibility is never even a false
statement saying otherwise is incorrect.

So, you don't mind if we propose that one possiblity for you incoprenesability it that you are just a mentally deficiet person?

 It is fair to say that you believe that I am incorrect when
your basis is what you believe to be the received view.
 It is incorrect for you to definitely say that I am incorrect
because this implies under every possible basis.

Suggesting as a possiblity, something that is not true, is just a LIE.

 Calling me a liar is way to far over the top. It destroys
your own credibility.