Re: Liar detector: Fred, Richard, Joes and Alan --- Richard is a Liar?

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, it must report on the full behavior of the program represented by its input.
"Its Simulation" is not a valid criteria for a decider, as the map it is computing isn't a function of what decider is being asked.
Now, "Its Simulation" may be all it has to go with, and if that isn't enough it will have trouble being correct.

 You are insisting that HHH must report on what it will do
as if it already did this. That would make HHH a liar.

Not correct. Since it is a deterministic program, what it will do has already been determined, and its programming must take that into account. After all, the creator of the program can know what it will do.
Since programs have no volition, they can't be "Liars", only wrong.
Lying requires a will, which programs do not have.

 You cannot simply assume that sequence of sequence, selection
and iteration does not exist. Actions do occur as specific
points in an execution trace THEY DO NOT HAPPEN ALL AT ONCE.
 

Of course they exists, and the results of them are per-determined by the code and the data.
The results of the actions are revealed in sequence, but the behavior was all fixed at the beginning.
You just don't seem to understand that nature of truth. Truth HAPPENS in an instant when that which it is based on is created. There is no "propgation delay".
It doesn't need to be seen or discovered to be true, it just is.
You get confused by KNOWLEDGE, which takes time to discover.