Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Liar detector: Fred, Richard, Joes and Alan --- Richard is a
 Liar?
Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2024 17:31:56 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <83dab358cd413bbb48dd3791890d1b526b019e40@i2pn2.org>
References: <v644pn$29t4h$3@dont-email.me> <v64e92$2bvgc$1@dont-email.me>
 <v65juc$2lui5$2@dont-email.me> <v665c9$2oun1$4@dont-email.me>
 <v66t0p$2n56v$1@dont-email.me> <v66t7p$2srk8$1@dont-email.me>
 <v66tql$2n56v$3@dont-email.me> <v66u56$2suut$1@dont-email.me>
 <v66v8i$2n56v$4@dont-email.me> <v67028$2t9el$1@dont-email.me>
 <v68b3f$2n56v$5@dont-email.me> <v68ocd$39dkv$5@dont-email.me>
 <v68pfo$2n56v$7@dont-email.me> <v68rnv$39tml$2@dont-email.me>
 <v68tvd$3ac9t$1@dont-email.me> <v68uj0$3ahel$1@dont-email.me>
 <v694k4$3bevk$1@dont-email.me> <v69502$3bh3f$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6b1k4$3odj5$1@dont-email.me> <v6bf7r$3qiio$2@dont-email.me>
 <v6bm5v$3rj8n$1@dont-email.me> <v6bmoe$3ri0l$2@dont-email.me>
 <v6bnt2$3rj8n$3@dont-email.me> <v6brfj$3skuk$2@dont-email.me>
 <v6c3vh$3ttem$1@dont-email.me> <v6c539$3u2mj$1@dont-email.me>
 <64b6a48b13e3b0739d79df538dca3e8d52c86f43@i2pn2.org>
 <v6cbe2$3v83p$1@dont-email.me>
 <bb01a6bddbf7ee29eee73cdcd7ddd4d0732218c1@i2pn2.org>
 <v6cboo$3v83p$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2024 21:31:57 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2381981"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v6cboo$3v83p$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 5278
Lines: 80

On 7/6/24 5:08 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/6/2024 4:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/6/24 5:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/6/2024 3:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 7/6/24 3:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/6/2024 1:55 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 06.jul.2024 om 18:30 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>> On 7/6/2024 10:29 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, why do you disagree that the x86 code specifies an HHH that 
>>>>>>>> aborts and halts? 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dishonest dodge of changing the subject. This is called
>>>>>>> the strawman deception and is a favorite tactic of liars.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Irrelevant text ignored. You talked about x86, therefore 
>>>>>> continuing to talk about x86 is not a change of subject.
>>>>>> I know you have difficulties to recognize the truth, so I do not 
>>>>>> feel offended, because: 'Don't assume somebody is wilfully wrong, 
>>>>>> if incompetence could be an explanation, as well.'
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you sufficiently understand the semantics of the x86
>>>>>>> language then you can see that the call to HHH(DDD) from
>>>>>>> DDD simulated according to the semantics of the x86 language
>>>>>>> cannot possibly return.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I understand enough of it to see that it cannot possibly return, 
>>>>>> because HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly.
>>>>>
>>>>> According to the semantics of the x86 language IS IS IMPOSSIBLE
>>>>> FOR DDD SIMULATED BY HHH TO RETURN AND IT IS EQUALLY IMPOSSIBLE
>>>>> FOR THE HHH(DDD) CALLED BY DDD SIMULATED BY HHH TO RETURN.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can't tell that you are ignorant or a liar and it is reaching
>>>>> the point where I don't care which it is.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, the DDD that HHH simulated MUST return since HHH aborts its 
>>>> simulation and returns.
>>>>
>>>
>>> By this same reason there is never any reason for you
>>> to go to the grocery store to buy groceries after you
>>> already made up your mind that you will do this.
>>>
>>
>> Why do you say that?
>>
>> You are just making bad analogies.
> 
> HHH cannot report on what it did before it does this.
> HHH must report on what it must do now.


No, HHH must report on what DDD actually does when run, if it is to be a 
decider.

The fact that it can't know, is what make the problem impossiblely hard.

You get confused because you forget that both HHH and DDD are 
deterministic programs. HHH *CAN* only answer what its algorithm tells 
it to do, and that algorithm is fixed by the instructions that make up HHH.

Just as DDD, does exactly what the instructions of DDD tell it to do, 
which INCLUDE the instructions of the HHH that it uses.

Thus, HHH has one and only one answer that it can give for each input, 
and DDD has one and only one behavior.

Since the one answer that HHH gives when given the representation of 
DDD, doesn't match that behavior of DDD, HHH is just proven to be incorrect.

The fact that for ANY decider we might try to create, we can make an 
input by the contrary behavior template that it will get wrong, shows us 
that Halting is a behavior that can not be solved by a computation.

Doesn't make the problem wrong or invalid, just not computable, as there 
is no requirement that the questions we try to put to a decider are 
computable. We can only succeed if they are.