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.
Your whole logic is based on those strawman of you claiming critria to
be "similar enough" when they are not (a blantant strawman) and logic
that is based on false premises that you just assume to be true.
All you are doing is PROVING that you seem to know the words about what
you are tryig to be, but are totally ignorant about the actual meaning
of them.
You need to start with the actual true statements you want to work with,
but you start with your UNPROVEN claims, and then try to prove, based on
the assumption they are true, that they are true.
That is NOT how logic works.
You have been asked, and have FAILED to provide, where any of your
claims you start from are actually known statements in computation theory.
Your failure just proves your logic is incorrect.
It seems, you have likely engaged in just about every know logical
fallicy in your reasoning.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)