Path: ...!news.misty.com!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 20:20:07 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <8b091927da50f703dd9d207d52d92ab97ec2493c@i2pn2.org>
References: <v644pn$29t4h$3@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>
 <83dab358cd413bbb48dd3791890d1b526b019e40@i2pn2.org>
 <v6cdk5$3viun$1@dont-email.me>
 <c320c5c5458ccce375c8dc694316c1c031332095@i2pn2.org>
 <v6cehc$3viun$2@dont-email.me>
 <ba1adc0f48c6d2930356b072815d6e17d9ccc9ad@i2pn2.org>
 <v6cfv7$13k$1@dont-email.me>
 <024d687a8f7fb00a6ff0ba883ccae61ba70003db@i2pn2.org>
 <v6chbl$13k$3@dont-email.me>
 <8a0dbc38d05e8cafcb53a1ddbc3605983b67e051@i2pn2.org>
 <v6ciqt$d3v$1@dont-email.me>
 <5c04052a3d139ac587f72bec322cc04efdb07c32@i2pn2.org>
 <v6cju3$kfo$1@dont-email.me>
 <c1e33e8d17881ae66899ec78d7efddfba2562f35@i2pn2.org>
 <v6clg1$mkt$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2024 00:20:07 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2381982"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v6clg1$mkt$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 6244
Lines: 113

On 7/6/24 7:54 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/6/2024 6:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/6/24 7:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/6/2024 6:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 7/6/24 7:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/6/2024 5:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/6/24 6:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/6/2024 5:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/6/24 6:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/6/2024 5:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/6/24 5:55 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/6/2024 4:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/6/24 5:40 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That requires HHH to report on what itself does before it 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> does this,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus exactly the same you you never needing to buy 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> groceries once
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you decide that you will do this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, because HHH is deterministic in behavior, 
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It cannot report on the effect of what it did before it does 
>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise we are back to you never needing to buy groceries as
>>>>>>>>>>> soon as you decide to go buy them.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It MUST report on what it DOES. 
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Exactly. That means that it cannot report on the
>>>>>>>>> effect of something that it has not yet done.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But all of its behavior comes into existance at once.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So you disagree with sequence, selection and iteration?
>>>>>>> Might as well say that you don't believe in arithmetic
>>>>>>> as your rebuttal to 2 + 3 = 5.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why do you say that,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The program executes in sequence, but the BEHAVIOR, which the 
>>>>>> execution REVEALS is instantaneously created by determinism.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> HHH must report on what it must do at a specific point in
>>>>> the execution trace of its simulation of DDD.
>>>>
>>>> No
>>>
>>> HHH cannot report on the effect of what it would do before it
>>> does this the same way that you cannot say that you don't need
>>> groceries at the point in time that you would otherwise go to
>>> the store to buy them.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> But it MUST, so you are just admitting that no such decider can exist.
>>
> 
> I am pointing out that you cannot correctly say that you don't
> need groceries until AFTER you go to the store and buy them.

Right, because I am a willful being, and thus until I do, I am not 
forced to do.

> 
> Pretending that everything happens all at once does not overcome
> this. Trying to get away with pretending that sequence of sequence
> selection and iteration does not exist is foolish.

Nope, because the program is deterministic, and thus all its future 
behavior has be fixed and determined, and thus established.

> 
> (a) You determine that you need groceries
> (b) You report this need
> (c) then you go to the store to buy them
> 
> (a) HHH determines that it needs to abort DDD
> (b) HHH reports this this need (as text before the action)
> (c) then HHH aborts DDD
> 

And I, being willful, am not FORCED to do that sequence. And I need to 
CORRECTLY determine I need groceries. I might first think I do, and then 
remember the backup stash that lets me wait a day or two.


But HHH, being deterministc, only follows is programming, so it senses 
no "need", it just reaches the condition that causes it to abort. But 
the condition was incorrectly determined, as we can see that by doing 
so, the behavior of this input has become halting.

So, while HHH was stuck in the sequence by its programming, it appears 
that its programming had an incorrect condition telling it to abort and 
report non-halting, so its code is just incorrect.

YOU as the programmer are supposedly willful, and need to make the right 
decisions, but apparently you don't think far enough ahead to see that 
by HHH aborting its simulation it can make the DDD built on it in this 
was be halting.

It appears you think it is ok to just be wrong and claim to be right, 
instead of working harder, or admitting that you can't make a program 
that answers the question.

In other words, you CHOOSE TO LIE rather that doing what was right,