Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Is Richard a Liar?
Date: Sat, 18 May 2024 10:43:22 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v2a0oa$1clc8$7@i2pn2.org>
References: <v18e32$1vbql$1@dont-email.me> <v200u2$8dd9$1@dont-email.me>
	<v202k0$8q16$1@dont-email.me> <v20654$9o07$1@dont-email.me>
	<v2086v$a4tr$1@dont-email.me> <v208db$a6jn$1@dont-email.me>
	<v20ak6$an12$1@dont-email.me> <v20b6v$akk9$1@dont-email.me>
	<v20eg6$bn7u$1@dont-email.me> <v20eqg$bki0$2@dont-email.me>
	<v20g5p$c1lu$1@dont-email.me> <v20gld$c8gh$1@dont-email.me>
	<v21k9m$nao2$1@dont-email.me> <v22f9e$tjgs$1@dont-email.me>
	<v22i3t$u5vc$1@dont-email.me> <v22nq4$ven4$1@dont-email.me>
	<v22uc5$10vef$1@dont-email.me> <v22vh7$11dig$2@dont-email.me>
	<v231gd$11ppa$1@dont-email.me> <v234r2$12odu$1@dont-email.me>
	<v24njh$1gvck$2@dont-email.me> <v256n5$1kais$2@dont-email.me>
	<v257o1$1kd2t$1@dont-email.me> <v25aqg$1l575$2@dont-email.me>
	<v25krf$1nb8s$1@dont-email.me> <v25n16$1nr9a$1@dont-email.me>
	<v271ms$2339e$1@dont-email.me> <v27t7q$28hmg$3@dont-email.me>
	<v280c2$295g9$1@dont-email.me> <v283gv$29rd7$2@dont-email.me>
	<v289kt$2au93$1@dont-email.me> <v28bh3$2be7c$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 18 May 2024 10:43:22 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1463688"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 7041
Lines: 97

Am Fri, 17 May 2024 14:34:58 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 5/17/2024 2:02 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 17.mei.2024 om 19:18 schreef olcott:
>>> On 5/17/2024 11:24 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 17.mei.2024 om 17:31 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 5/17/2024 2:41 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 16.mei.2024 om 21:32 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>> On 5/16/2024 1:55 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>> Op 16.mei.2024 om 18:04 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/16/2024 10:12 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Op 16.mei.2024 om 16:54 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/16/2024 5:36 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 15.mei.2024 om 22:10 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/15/2024 2:13 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 15.mei.2024 om 20:39 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/15/2024 1:19 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 15.mei.2024 om 18:27 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/15/2024 9:50 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 15.mei.2024 om 16:02 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/15/2024 1:21 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 14.mei.2024 om 22:13 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2024 3:05 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 14.mei.2024 om 21:42 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2024 2:36 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 14.mei.2024 om 20:40 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2024 1:30 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 14.mei.2024 om 19:52 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2024 12:49 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 14.mei.2024 om 19:14 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2024 11:13 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 14.mei.2024 om 17:45 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2024 10:42 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 14.mei.2024 om 17:30 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2024 10:08 AM, Alan Mackenzie 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2024 4:44 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-12 15:58:02 +0000, olcott 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/2024 10:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-12 11:34:17 +0000, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/24 5:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-11 16:26:30 +0000, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott said:
[kept for beauty]

>>> The you want me to prove something to you in a language that you do not
>>> sufficiently understand is an unreasonable request. I have improved the
>>> words of my proof and put in some more details.
Unreasonable is requesting a review, nay, a commitment to correctness.

[copypasta]
>> Again no proof. But it seems that olcott is slowly starting to 
>> understand that it is not self-evident, because he now shows a small 
>> beginning of an attempt for a proof. It is a pity for him that he 
>> ignored the rest of my post where I told him a brief outline for a proof.
>> What we still miss are the requirements for H. 
> I try to do the best that I can to write my words so that even people
> with attention deficit disorder (ADD) can understand them.
No need to stigmatise.

>> A working example is not 
>> enough to define an infinite set of H. So, define the requirements.
> I did and always have. Possibly not well enough for people having
> ADD that can hardly pay any attention. Not well enough for people
> having insufficient knowledge of the semantics of C.
Where is the code for H?

>> Then, do not only claim that there is a simulation invariant, but prove 
>> it. 
> Prove that 2 + 3 = 5 to someone that does not know what numbers are.
> No need for any proof for people that understand arithmetic.
Then what are you doing here?

>> Of course you need to master a language to express such a proof. If 
>> you don't master such a language, try to learn it. Claiming, without 
>> evidence, that it is self-evident is not part of the correct language.
> If you have ADD and can't pay attention or do not know the semantics
> of C well enough to understand that I have proved my point I don't
> know what I can do to help you understand that what I have said has
> always been self-evidently true for everyone having sufficient
> knowledge of the semantics of C.
> 
> Tell me which part you don't understand and I might be able to help.
> If you have no idea what infinite recursion is then I cannot help.


>> Then explain how H determines that there is a recursive simulation, so 
>> that it can abort the simulation.
> *That is not any part of what I claimed above*
> *You must pay 100% complete attention to my exact words*
> If you don't have that much attention span, I can't help.
You claim that H is a simulator and a decider.

-- 
joes