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 18:16:44 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <ba1adc0f48c6d2930356b072815d6e17d9ccc9ad@i2pn2.org>
References: <v644pn$29t4h$3@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>
 <83dab358cd413bbb48dd3791890d1b526b019e40@i2pn2.org>
 <v6cdk5$3viun$1@dont-email.me>
 <c320c5c5458ccce375c8dc694316c1c031332095@i2pn2.org>
 <v6cehc$3viun$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 22:16:44 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2381981"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v6cehc$3viun$2@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 5359
Lines: 80

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:
>>> On 7/6/2024 4:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> 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, 
>>>
>>> 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. Remember, the behavior is determined by 
determinism and there is no "sequence".

You just don't seem to understand how determinism works, showing your 
total lack of understanding about how programs work.

I sometimes wonder if you get confused because you last your own free 
will by brainwashing yourself in a deal with Satan.