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

On 7/6/24 7:28 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/6/2024 6:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

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

 HHH cannot report on the effect of what it would do before it
does this the same way that you cannot say that you don't need
groceries at the point in time that you would otherwise go to
the store to buy them.
 

But it MUST, so you are just admitting that no such decider can exist.
And thus agree with the Halting Theorem.
And AGAIN, you confuse deterministic programs with will-full beings, just showing your utter IGNORANCE of the field of Programming.