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 17:06:10 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <bb01a6bddbf7ee29eee73cdcd7ddd4d0732218c1@i2pn2.org>
References: <v644pn$29t4h$3@dont-email.me> <v648nk$29pag$8@dont-email.me>
 <v64as3$2bc8m$1@dont-email.me> <v64drn$29pag$10@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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2024 21:06:10 -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: <v6cbe2$3v83p$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 3830
Lines: 47

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.