Re: Is Richard a Liar?

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