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.
That is not even the way that deductive inference works.
For you to state that I am a liar in ridiculously large letters
on the basis that you disagree with one of my premises shows both
incorrect reasoning on your part as well as a woefully inadequate
degree of professional decorum.
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:But since it isn't, your whole argument falls apart.
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: >>>>>>>>
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.
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:But since it isn't, your whole argument falls apart.
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: >>>>>>>>>>
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 verified fact that you are clueless about this*
It is important to stress that the premises
of an argument do not have actually to be
true in order for the argument to be valid. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
On 10/11/2024 12:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:That doesn't make the conclusion true.
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:
*It is a verified fact that you are clueless about this*Of course they can be invalid,Premises cannot be invalid.The issue isn't that your premise is "incorrect", but it is INVALID,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.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 aPerhaps you are unaware of how valid deductive inference works.And an admission that you are just working on a lie.Ah a breakthrough.When the behavior of DDD emulated by HHH is the measure then: >>>>>>>>>> But since it isn't, your whole argument falls apart.olcott deliberately lies (he knows what is told, he choose to >>>>>>>>>>>> distort). olcottAs 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.
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.
PARTIAL emulation with a different final behavior.
as it is based on the redefinition of fundamental words.
It is important to stress that the premises of an argument do not
have actually to be true in order for the argument to be valid. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
On 10/11/2024 4:13 PM, joes wrote:
Am Fri, 11 Oct 2024 12:22:50 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 10/11/2024 12:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:That doesn't make the conclusion true.
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:
*It is a verified fact that you are clueless about this*Of course they can be invalid,Premises cannot be invalid.The issue isn't that your premise is "incorrect", but it is INVALID, >>>>>> as it is based on the redefinition of fundamental words.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.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.Perhaps you are unaware of how valid deductive inference works. >>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoningAnd an admission that you are just working on a lie.Ah a breakthrough.When the behavior of DDD emulated by HHH is the measure then: >>>>>>>>>>>> But since it isn't, your whole argument falls apart.olcott deliberately lies (he knows what is told, he choose to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> distort). olcottAs 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.
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.
It is important to stress that the premises of an argument do not >>> have actually to be true in order for the argument to be valid. >>> https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
It makes my conclusion that Richard is clueless about
these things true.
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:
That doesn't make the conclusion true.*It is a verified fact that you are clueless about this*Of course they can be invalid,Premises cannot be invalid.The issue isn't that your premise is "incorrect", but it is INVALID, >>>>> as it is based on the redefinition of fundamental words.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.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.Perhaps you are unaware of how valid deductive inference works. >>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoningAnd an admission that you are just working on a lie.Ah a breakthrough.When the behavior of DDD emulated by HHH is the measure then: >>>>>>>>>>> But since it isn't, your whole argument falls apart.olcott deliberately lies (he knows what is told, he choose to >>>>>>>>>>>>> distort). olcottAs 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.
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.
It is important to stress that the premises of an argument do not
have actually to be true in order for the argument to be valid.
https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
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:But since it isn't, your whole argument falls apart.
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: >>>>>>>>
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.
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:
Of course they can be invalid,Premises cannot be invalid.The issue isn't that your premise is "incorrect", but it is INVALID, >>>>>>> as it is based on the redefinition of fundamental words.My whole point in this thread is that it is incorrect for you to >>>>>>>> saySo, 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.Perhaps you are unaware of how valid deductive inference works. >>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoningAnd an admission that you are just working on a lie.Ah a breakthrough.When the behavior of DDD emulated by HHH is the measure then: >>>>>>>>>>>>> But since it isn't, your whole argument falls apart.distort). olcottAs 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
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.
that my reasoning is invalid on the basis that you do not agree >>>>>>>> with
one of my premises.
It is a type mismatch error.
Premises cannot be invalid.
*It is a verified fact that you are clueless about this*
It is important to stress that the premises of an argument do not
have actually to be true in order for the argument to be valid.
https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
That doesn't make the conclusion true.
But it does tell that if the conclusion is false then at least one
of the premises is false, too.
It might not be that a premise is false either, it may only
seem false from a certain "received view" point of view.
Software engineering looks at things differently than the
theory of computation.
void DDD()
{
HHH(DDD);
return;
}
When HHH is an x86 emulation based termination analyzer
then each DDD emulated by any HHH that it calls never returns.
Each of the directly executed HHH emulator/analyzers that returns
0 correctly reports the above non-terminating behavior of its input.
On 10/12/2024 9:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote:So "af;kldsanflksadhtfawieohfnapio" is an invalid premise?
On 10/12/24 6:17 AM, olcott wrote:"valid" is a term-of-the-art of deductive logical inference. When the
On 10/12/2024 3:13 AM, Mikko wrote:So "af;kldsanflksadhtfawieohfnapio" is a valid premise?
On 2024-10-11 21:13:18 +0000, joes said:It is a type mismatch error. Premises cannot be invalid.
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:
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 you >>>>>>>>>> to say that my reasoning is invalid on the basis that you do >>>>>>>>>> not agree with one of my premises.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.Perhaps you are unaware of how valid deductive inference >>>>>>>>>>>> works.And an admission that you are just working on a lie.But since it isn't, your whole argument falls apart. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ah a breakthrough.When the behavior of DDD emulated by HHH is the measure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then: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
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.
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.
On 10/12/2024 12:13 PM, joes wrote:Back to the topic: your premise that the measure of the behaviour of DDD
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:
"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 is >>>>>>>>>>> INVALID,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.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.You can disagreeAnd an admission that you are just working on a lie. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps you are unaware of how valid deductive inference >>>>>>>>>>>>>> works.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.
that the premise to my reasoning is true.
By changing my premise as the basis of your rebuttal you >>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit the strawman error.
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.
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:
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 you >>>>>>>>>> to saySo, how do you get from the DEFINITION of Halting being a >>>>>>>>>>> behaviorPerhaps you are unaware of how valid deductive inference works. >>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoningAnd an admission that you are just working on a lie.But since it isn't, your whole argument falls apart. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ah a breakthrough.When the behavior of DDD emulated by HHH is the measure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then:distort). olcottAs 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
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.
of the actual machine, to something that can be talked about >>>>>>>>>>> by a
PARTIAL emulation with a different final behavior.
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.
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.
On 10/12/2024 9:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote:Yes. DDD reaches it, so a purported simulator should as well.
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:
So if we ask the exact question can DDD emulated by any HHH reach itsWhen HHH is an x86 emulation based termination analyzer then each DDDNope, Even software Engineering treats the funciton HHH as part of the
emulated by any HHH that it calls never returns.
program DDD, and termination analysis as looking at properties of the
whole program, not a partial emulation of it.
own return statement they would answer the counter-factual yes?
On 10/12/2024 2:00 PM, joes wrote:Vide.
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:
When the behavior of DDD emulated by HHH is the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> measure then:
See above. You should pay attention if it didn't make a difference.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 anyBack to the topic: your premise that the measure of the behaviour of"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. WhenSo "af;kldsanflksadhtfawieohfnapio" is a valid premise?It is a type mismatch error. Premises cannot be invalid.Of course they can be invalid,The issue isn't that your premise is "incorrect", but it is >>>>>>>>>>>>> INVALID,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.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.You can disagree that the premise to my reasoning is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true.And an admission that you are just working on a lie. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps you are unaware of how valid deductive inference >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> works.But since it isn't, your whole argument falls apart. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ah a breakthrough.
By changing my premise as the basis of your rebuttal you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit the strawman error.
as it is based on the redefinition of fundamental words. >>>>>>>>>>>> Premises cannot be invalid.
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.
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.
DDD is the emulation of it done by HHH is wrong.
other way to say it than the way that I did say it.
The only one here besides me that seems to understand the actualI wonder what difference you see in him?
software engineering aspects of this is Mike.
Everyone else here seems to have no deeper understanding than
learn-by-rote from CS textbook.
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:
Of course they can be invalid,Premises cannot be invalid.The issue isn't that your premise is "incorrect", but it is INVALID, >>>>>>> as it is based on the redefinition of fundamental words.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.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.Perhaps you are unaware of how valid deductive inference works. >>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoningAnd an admission that you are just working on a lie.Ah a breakthrough.When the behavior of DDD emulated by HHH is the measure then: >>>>>>>>>>>>> But since it isn't, your whole argument falls apart.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
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.
It is a type mismatch error.
Premises cannot be invalid.
*It is a verified fact that you are clueless about this*
It is important to stress that the premises of an argument do not
have actually to be true in order for the argument to be valid.
https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
That doesn't make the conclusion true.
But it does tell that if the conclusion is false then at least one
of the premises is false, too.
It might not be that a premise is false either, it may only
seem false from a certain "received view" point of view.
On 10/12/2024 3:50 AM, Mikko wrote:
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:But since it isn't, your whole argument falls apart.
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: >>>>>>>>>>
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.
Within the term of the art of deductive logic premises
can be true or false and cannot bed valid or 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.
Valid applies to the inference steps, not the premises.
On 10/12/2024 5:12 PM, joes wrote:
Am Sat, 12 Oct 2024 14:03:01 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 10/12/2024 9:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote:Yes. DDD reaches it, so a purported simulator should as well.
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:
So if we ask the exact question can DDD emulated by any HHH reach itsWhen HHH is an x86 emulation based termination analyzer then each DDD >>>>> emulated by any HHH that it calls never returns.Nope, Even software Engineering treats the funciton HHH as part of the >>>> program DDD, and termination analysis as looking at properties of the
whole program, not a partial emulation of it.
own return statement they would answer the counter-factual yes?
Therefore HHH is not a simulator.
I tried to tell ChatGPT the same thing several times
and it would not accept this. https://chatgpt.com/share/6709e046-4794-8011-98b7-27066fb49f3e
Although LLM system are prone to lying: If it told a lie
there would be an error that could be found in its reasoning.
On 2024-10-12 22:52:30 +0000, olcott said:
On 10/12/2024 5:12 PM, joes wrote:
Am Sat, 12 Oct 2024 14:03:01 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 10/12/2024 9:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote:Yes. DDD reaches it, so a purported simulator should as well.
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:
So if we ask the exact question can DDD emulated by any HHH reach itsWhen HHH is an x86 emulation based termination analyzer then each DDD >>>>>> emulated by any HHH that it calls never returns.Nope, Even software Engineering treats the funciton HHH as part of the >>>>> program DDD, and termination analysis as looking at properties of the >>>>> whole program, not a partial emulation of it.
own return statement they would answer the counter-factual yes?
Therefore HHH is not a simulator.
I tried to tell ChatGPT the same thing several times
and it would not accept this.
https://chatgpt.com/share/6709e046-4794-8011-98b7-27066fb49f3e
Although LLM system are prone to lying: If it told a lie
there would be an error that could be found in its reasoning.
Not necessarily in the reasoning. The error could also be in the input material.
On 10/12/2024 3:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/12/24 1:36 PM, olcott wrote:
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:So "af;kldsanflksadhtfawieohfnapio" is an invalid premise?
On 10/12/24 6:17 AM, olcott wrote:"valid" is a term-of-the-art of deductive logical inference. When the >>>>> subject is deductive logical inference one cannot substitute the
On 10/12/2024 3:13 AM, Mikko wrote:So "af;kldsanflksadhtfawieohfnapio" is a valid premise?
On 2024-10-11 21:13:18 +0000, joes said:It is a type mismatch error. Premises cannot be invalid.
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:
Of course they can be invalid,The issue isn't that your premise is "incorrect", but it is >>>>>>>>>>>>> INVALID,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.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.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man You can disagree >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thatAnd an admission that you are just working on a lie. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps you are unaware of how valid deductive inference >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> works.But since it isn't, your whole argument falls apart. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ah a breakthrough.When the behavior of DDD emulated by HHH is the measure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then: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
the premise to my reasoning is true.
By changing my premise as the basis of your rebuttal you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit the strawman error.
as it is based on the redefinition of fundamental words. >>>>>>>>>>>> Premises cannot be invalid.
common
meaning for the term-of-the-art meaning.
This is a fallacy of equivocation error.
"invalid" referring to a premise within the terms-of-the-art
of 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.
No, untrue isn't the normal term of art, except it tri- (or other
multi-) valued logics.
Within ordinary deductive logic there seems to be
no such thing as an invalid premise. Mathematical
logic may do this differently.
You are just showing you don't understand the concepts of the logic
system, likely because you stupidly decided to not learn them.
Self-inflicted ignorance is NOT an excuse.
On 10/12/2024 3:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/12/24 3:03 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:
Of course they can be invalid,Premises cannot be invalid.The issue isn't that your premise is "incorrect", but it is >>>>>>>>>>> INVALID,My whole point in this thread is that it is incorrect for >>>>>>>>>>>> you to saySo, how do you get from the DEFINITION of Halting being a >>>>>>>>>>>>> behaviorhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoningAnd an admission that you are just working on a lie. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps you are unaware of how valid deductive inference >>>>>>>>>>>>>> works.But since it isn't, your whole argument falls apart. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ah a breakthrough.When the behavior of DDD emulated by HHH is the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> measure then:distort). olcottAs 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
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.
of the actual machine, to something that can be talked >>>>>>>>>>>>> about by a
PARTIAL emulation with a different final behavior.
that my reasoning is invalid on the basis that you do not >>>>>>>>>>>> agree with
one of my premises.
as it is based on the redefinition of fundamental words.
It is a type mismatch error.
Premises cannot be invalid.
So "af;kldsanflksadhtfawieohfnapio" is a valid premise?
*It is a verified fact that you are clueless about this*
It is important to stress that the premises of an argument do not >>>>>>>> have actually to be true in order for the argument to be valid. >>>>>>>> https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
That doesn't make the conclusion true.
But it does tell that if the conclusion is false then at least one >>>>>> of the premises is false, too.
It might not be that a premise is false either, it may only
seem false from a certain "received view" point of view.
No, your premise can NEVER be valid, because it is based on
Software engineering looks at things differently than the
theory of computation.
Not on this point.
void DDD()
{
HHH(DDD);
return;
}
When HHH is an x86 emulation based termination analyzer
then each DDD emulated by any HHH that it calls never returns.
Nope, Even software Engineering treats the funciton HHH as part of
the program DDD, and termination analysis as looking at properties
of the whole program, not a partial emulation of it.
So if we ask the exact question can DDD emulated by any
HHH reach its own return statement they would answer the
counter-factual yes?
No, you need to de-equivocate the statement, as I have pointed out.
You can't even show that you even know what the word "equivocate" means.
If you mean the behavior of the DDD, that HHH emulated, then the
answer is that a proper emulation of that DDD will reach that point,
but no HHH when emulating its own DDD will, showing that HHH doesn't
do a "correct emulation"
You are merely proving your ignorance of software engineering.
HHH must emulate the instructions that it sees and it not
allowed to emulate any instructions that it does not see.
Although HHH does abort the emulation of DDD it cannot simply
wait for itself to do this. You don't seem to be able to get
this.
That your rebuttals are pure bluster utterly bereft of any
supporting reasoning is clear to all having sufficient
technical understanding.
On 10/13/2024 3:16 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-10-12 22:52:30 +0000, olcott said:
On 10/12/2024 5:12 PM, joes wrote:
Am Sat, 12 Oct 2024 14:03:01 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 10/12/2024 9:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote:Yes. DDD reaches it, so a purported simulator should as well.
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:
So if we ask the exact question can DDD emulated by any HHH reach its >>>>> own return statement they would answer the counter-factual yes?When HHH is an x86 emulation based termination analyzer then each >>>>>>> DDDNope, Even software Engineering treats the funciton HHH as part of >>>>>> the
emulated by any HHH that it calls never returns.
program DDD, and termination analysis as looking at properties of the >>>>>> whole program, not a partial emulation of it.
Therefore HHH is not a simulator.
I tried to tell ChatGPT the same thing several times
and it would not accept this.
https://chatgpt.com/share/6709e046-4794-8011-98b7-27066fb49f3e
Although LLM system are prone to lying: If it told a lie
there would be an error that could be found in its reasoning.
Not necessarily in the reasoning. The error could also be in the input
material.
Some cases may be too complex to verify. When all of its
premises are true and it only applies truth preserving
operations to these premises then its conclusion is
necessarily correct.
https://chatgpt.com/share/6709e046-4794-8011-98b7-27066fb49f3e
When you click on the link and try to explain how HHH must
be wrong when it reports that DDD does not terminate because
DDD does terminate it will explain your mistake to you.
On 10/13/2024 7:49 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/12/24 8:18 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/12/2024 3:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
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:Back to the topic: your premise that the measure of the behaviour
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:
"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,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 aworks.And an admission that you are just working on a lie. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps you are unaware of how valid deductive >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inferenceWhen the behavior of DDD emulated by HHH is the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> measureBut since it isn't, your whole argument falls apart. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ah a breakthrough.
then:
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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Premises cannot be invalid.
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.
of DDD
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.
Then why do you keep on revising the wording if you spent enough time
to get it right the first time?
I keep revising the wording because I am not infallible.
I can't get it right the first time because I need
feedback on which words are not fully understood.
On 10/13/2024 7:48 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/12/24 8:35 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/12/2024 3:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/12/24 3:03 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:
Of course they can be invalid,The issue isn't that your premise is "incorrect", but it is >>>>>>>>>>>>> INVALID,that my reasoning is invalid on the basis that you do not >>>>>>>>>>>>>> agree withSo, how do you get from the DEFINITION of Halting being a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behaviorhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_manAnd an admission that you are just working on a lie. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps you are unaware of how valid deductive inference >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> works.But since it isn't, your whole argument falls apart. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ah a breakthrough.When the behavior of DDD emulated by HHH is the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> measure then:distort). olcottAs 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
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.
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
one of my premises.
as it is based on the redefinition of fundamental words. >>>>>>>>>>>> Premises cannot be invalid.
It is a type mismatch error.
Premises cannot be invalid.
So "af;kldsanflksadhtfawieohfnapio" is a valid premise?
*It is a verified fact that you are clueless about this*
It is important to stress that the premises of an argument do not >>>>>>>>>> have actually to be true in order for the argument to be valid. >>>>>>>>>> https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
That doesn't make the conclusion true.
But it does tell that if the conclusion is false then at least one >>>>>>>> of the premises is false, too.
It might not be that a premise is false either, it may only
seem false from a certain "received view" point of view.
No, your premise can NEVER be valid, because it is based on
Software engineering looks at things differently than the
theory of computation.
Not on this point.
void DDD()
{
HHH(DDD);
return;
}
When HHH is an x86 emulation based termination analyzer
then each DDD emulated by any HHH that it calls never returns.
Nope, Even software Engineering treats the funciton HHH as part of >>>>>> the program DDD, and termination analysis as looking at properties >>>>>> of the whole program, not a partial emulation of it.
So if we ask the exact question can DDD emulated by any
HHH reach its own return statement they would answer the
counter-factual yes?
No, you need to de-equivocate the statement, as I have pointed out.
You can't even show that you even know what the word "equivocate" means.
Sure I did, I showed the two meaning of the word that you were trying
to confuse and how you were tring to use it to lie.
Not at all. I provide a precise specification (as in this new post)
[I am claiming that these exact words are necessarily true]
You incorrectly paraphrase these words (your equivocation not mine)
and then form a rebuttal on the basis of the incorrect paraphrase.
On 10/13/2024 7:48 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/13/24 4:16 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-10-12 22:52:30 +0000, olcott said:
On 10/12/2024 5:12 PM, joes wrote:
Am Sat, 12 Oct 2024 14:03:01 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 10/12/2024 9:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote:Yes. DDD reaches it, so a purported simulator should as well.
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:
So if we ask the exact question can DDD emulated by any HHH reach its >>>>>> own return statement they would answer the counter-factual yes?When HHH is an x86 emulation based termination analyzer thenNope, Even software Engineering treats the funciton HHH as part
each DDD
emulated by any HHH that it calls never returns.
of the
program DDD, and termination analysis as looking at properties of >>>>>>> the
whole program, not a partial emulation of it.
Therefore HHH is not a simulator.
I tried to tell ChatGPT the same thing several times
and it would not accept this.
https://chatgpt.com/share/6709e046-4794-8011-98b7-27066fb49f3e
Although LLM system are prone to lying: If it told a lie
there would be an error that could be found in its reasoning.
Not necessarily in the reasoning. The error could also be in the input
material.
Right, like you claim that HHH can correctly answer based on its
limited knowledge even if that answer is wrong.
You TOLD IT that lying was ok.
See new post:
[ChatGPT refutes the key rebuttal of my work]
I only told ChatGPT the source-code for DDD
and the design of HHH.
You don't want to try to find any mistake that
it made because you know that you will lose.
Am Sat, 12 Oct 2024 14:21:14 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 10/12/2024 2:00 PM, joes wrote:Vide.
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:
When the behavior of DDD emulated by HHH is the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> measure then:
See above. You should pay attention if it didn't make a difference.I didn't say it exactly that way. Richard thinks that the way you say itBack to the topic: your premise that the measure of the behaviour of"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. WhenSo "af;kldsanflksadhtfawieohfnapio" is a valid premise?It is a type mismatch error. Premises cannot be invalid.Of course they can be invalid,The issue isn't that your premise is "incorrect", but it is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> INVALID,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.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.You can disagree that the premise to my reasoning is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true.And an admission that you are just working on a lie. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps you are unaware of how valid deductive inference >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> works.But since it isn't, your whole argument falls apart. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ah a breakthrough.
By changing my premise as the basis of your rebuttal you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit the strawman error.
as it is based on the redefinition of fundamental words. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Premises cannot be invalid.
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.
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.
DDD is the emulation of it done by HHH is wrong.
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.
The only one here besides me that seems to understand the actual
software engineering aspects of this is Mike.
Everyone else here seems to have no deeper understanding than
learn-by-rote from CS textbook.
I wonder what difference you see in him?
On 10/13/2024 2:50 AM, Mikko wrote:
Yes that is a correct use of terminology.
Premises cannot be invalid, they can only be true or false.
from the same point of view (at least if
the point of view is logically valid).
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
On 10/12/24 8:11 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/12/2024 3:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/12/24 1:36 PM, olcott wrote:
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:So "af;kldsanflksadhtfawieohfnapio" is an invalid premise?
On 10/12/24 6:17 AM, olcott wrote:"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.
On 10/12/2024 3:13 AM, Mikko wrote:So "af;kldsanflksadhtfawieohfnapio" is a valid premise?
On 2024-10-11 21:13:18 +0000, joes said:It is a type mismatch error. Premises cannot be invalid.
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:
Of course they can be invalid,The issue isn't that your premise is "incorrect", but it is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> INVALID,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.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.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.And an admission that you are just working on a lie. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps you are unaware of how valid deductive inference >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> works.But since it isn't, your whole argument falls apart. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ah a breakthrough.When the behavior of DDD emulated by HHH is the measure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then: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
By changing my premise as the basis of your rebuttal you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit the strawman error.
as it is based on the redefinition of fundamental words. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Premises cannot be invalid.
This is a fallacy of equivocation error.
"invalid" referring to a premise within the terms-of-the-art
of 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.
No, untrue isn't the normal term of art, except it tri- (or other
multi-) valued logics.
Within ordinary deductive logic there seems to be
no such thing as an invalid premise. Mathematical
logic may do this differently.
Nope, You just don't understand logic. Within Formal Logic there is a
concept of an invalid premise, being a premise that can not have a
logical interpretation.
Part of the problem is you don't seem to understand that words DO have multiple meanings, and you need to use the right one for the context.
On 10/13/2024 3:16 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-10-12 22:52:30 +0000, olcott said:
On 10/12/2024 5:12 PM, joes wrote:
Am Sat, 12 Oct 2024 14:03:01 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 10/12/2024 9:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote:Yes. DDD reaches it, so a purported simulator should as well.
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:
So if we ask the exact question can DDD emulated by any HHH reach its >>>>> own return statement they would answer the counter-factual yes?When HHH is an x86 emulation based termination analyzer then each DDD >>>>>>> emulated by any HHH that it calls never returns.Nope, Even software Engineering treats the funciton HHH as part of the >>>>>> program DDD, and termination analysis as looking at properties of the >>>>>> whole program, not a partial emulation of it.
Therefore HHH is not a simulator.
I tried to tell ChatGPT the same thing several times
and it would not accept this.
https://chatgpt.com/share/6709e046-4794-8011-98b7-27066fb49f3e
Although LLM system are prone to lying: If it told a lie
there would be an error that could be found in its reasoning.
Not necessarily in the reasoning. The error could also be in the input
material.
Some cases may be too complex to verify. When all of its
premises are true and it only applies truth preserving
operations to these premises then its conclusion is
necessarily correct.
On 10/14/2024 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:Whatever. Your premise is false, so your conclusion at least cannot be
On 2024-10-13 12:49:01 +0000, Richard Damon said:
On 10/12/24 8:11 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/12/2024 3:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/12/24 1:36 PM, olcott wrote:
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: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/10/2024 2:26 PM, wij wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-10-10 at 17:05 +0000, Alan Mackenzie >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and allThe meaning of invalid is basically the same: a thing is invalid if itNope, You just don't understand logic. Within Formal Logic there is aWithin ordinary deductive logic there seems to be no such thing as anNo, untrue isn't the normal term of art, except it tri- (or other"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 >>>>>>>> the subject is deductive logical inference one cannot substitute >>>>>>>> the common meaning for the term-of-the-art meaning.So "af;kldsanflksadhtfawieohfnapio" is a valid premise?It is a type mismatch error. Premises cannot be invalid.Of course they can be invalid,as it is based on the redefinition of fundamental words. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Premises cannot be invalid.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,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.disagree that the premise to my reasoning is true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By changing my premise as the basis of your rebuttal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you commit the strawman error.And an admission that you are just working on a lie. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps you are unaware of how valid deductive >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inference works. You canAh a breakthrough.When the behavior of DDD emulated by HHH is the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> measure then:But since it isn't, your whole argument falls >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apart.
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.
multi-) valued logics.
invalid premise. Mathematical logic may do this differently.
concept of an invalid premise, being a premise that can not have a
logical interpretation.
Part of the problem is you don't seem to understand that words DO have
multiple meanings, and you need to use the right one for the context.
is not what it is claimed or required to be. The differences in
definitions are just adaptations to the details of different
requirements.
of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound.
On 10/14/2024 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-10-13 12:49:01 +0000, Richard Damon said:
On 10/12/24 8:11 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/12/2024 3:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/12/24 1:36 PM, olcott wrote:
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:So "af;kldsanflksadhtfawieohfnapio" is an invalid premise?
On 10/12/24 6:17 AM, olcott wrote:"valid" is a term-of-the-art of deductive logical inference.
On 10/12/2024 3:13 AM, Mikko wrote:So "af;kldsanflksadhtfawieohfnapio" is a valid premise?
On 2024-10-11 21:13:18 +0000, joes said:It is a type mismatch error. Premises cannot be invalid.
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:Of course they can be invalid,
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:The issue isn't that your premise is "incorrect", but it is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> INVALID,
My whole point in this thread is that it is incorrect >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for youOn 10/11/2024 6:04 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/10/24 9:57 PM, olcott wrote: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
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man You can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disagree thatOn 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:And an admission that you are just working on a lie. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps you are unaware of how valid deductive inference >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> works.
But since it isn't, your whole argument falls apart. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ah a breakthrough.When the behavior of DDD emulated by HHH is the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> measureMikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-10-09 19:34:34 +0000, Alan Mackenzie >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> said:olcott deliberately lies (he knows what is told, he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choose to distort). olcott
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.
then:
the premise to my reasoning is true.
By changing my premise as the basis of your rebuttal you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit the strawman error.
behavior.
to say that my reasoning is invalid on the basis that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you do
not agree with one of my premises.
as it is based on the redefinition of fundamental words. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Premises cannot be invalid.
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.
"invalid" referring to a premise within the terms-of-the-art
of 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.
No, untrue isn't the normal term of art, except it tri- (or other
multi-) valued logics.
Within ordinary deductive logic there seems to be
no such thing as an invalid premise. Mathematical
logic may do this differently.
Nope, You just don't understand logic. Within Formal Logic there is a
concept of an invalid premise, being a premise that can not have a
logical interpretation.
Part of the problem is you don't seem to understand that words DO
have multiple meanings, and you need to use the right one for the
context.
The meaning of invalid is basically the same: a thing is invalid if it is
not what it is claimed or required to be. The differences in definitions
are just adaptations to the details of different requirements.
*Validity and Soundness*
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form
that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be invalid.
A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all
of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound.
https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
On 10/14/2024 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-10-13 12:49:01 +0000, Richard Damon said:
On 10/12/24 8:11 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/12/2024 3:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/12/24 1:36 PM, olcott wrote:
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:So "af;kldsanflksadhtfawieohfnapio" is an invalid premise?
On 10/12/24 6:17 AM, olcott wrote:"valid" is a term-of-the-art of deductive logical inference. When the >>>>>>>> subject is deductive logical inference one cannot substitute the common
On 10/12/2024 3:13 AM, Mikko wrote:So "af;kldsanflksadhtfawieohfnapio" is a valid premise?
On 2024-10-11 21:13:18 +0000, joes said:It is a type mismatch error. Premises cannot be invalid.
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:Of course they can be invalid,
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:The issue isn't that your premise is "incorrect", but it is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> INVALID,
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.On 10/11/2024 6:04 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/10/24 9:57 PM, olcott wrote: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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man You can disagree thatOn 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:And an admission that you are just working on a lie. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps you are unaware of how valid deductive inference >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> works.
But since it isn't, your whole argument falls apart. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ah a breakthrough.When the behavior of DDD emulated by HHH is the measure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then: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
the premise to my reasoning is true.
By changing my premise as the basis of your rebuttal you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit the strawman error.
as it is based on the redefinition of fundamental words. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Premises cannot be invalid.
meaning for the term-of-the-art meaning.
This is a fallacy of equivocation error.
"invalid" referring to a premise within the terms-of-the-art
of 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.
No, untrue isn't the normal term of art, except it tri- (or other
multi-) valued logics.
Within ordinary deductive logic there seems to be
no such thing as an invalid premise. Mathematical
logic may do this differently.
Nope, You just don't understand logic. Within Formal Logic there is a
concept of an invalid premise, being a premise that can not have a
logical interpretation.
Part of the problem is you don't seem to understand that words DO have
multiple meanings, and you need to use the right one for the context.
The meaning of invalid is basically the same: a thing is invalid if it is
not what it is claimed or required to be. The differences in definitions
are just adaptations to the details of different requirements.
*Validity and Soundness*
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form
that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be invalid.
A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all
of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound.
https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
On 10/13/2024 2:50 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-10-12 10:17:25 +0000, olcott said:
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:
Of course they can be invalid,Premises cannot be invalid.The issue isn't that your premise is "incorrect", but it is INVALID, >>>>>>>>> as it is based on the redefinition of fundamental words.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.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.Perhaps you are unaware of how valid deductive inference works. >>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoningAnd an admission that you are just working on a lie.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.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
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.
It is a type mismatch error.
Premises cannot be invalid.
*It is a verified fact that you are clueless about this*
It is important to stress that the premises of an argument do not
have actually to be true in order for the argument to be valid.
https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
That doesn't make the conclusion true.
But it does tell that if the conclusion is false then at least one
of the premises is false, too.
It might not be that a premise is false either, it may only
seem false from a certain "received view" point of view.
If the inference is valid and conclusion is false then at least one
of the premises [is] false
Yes that is a correct use of terminology.
Premises cannot be invalid, they can only be true or false.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 00:02:18 |
| Calls: | 10,385 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,057 |
| Messages: | 6,416,566 |