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

On 7/6/24 7:54 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/6/2024 6:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

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.
>

 I am pointing out that you cannot correctly say that you don't
need groceries until AFTER you go to the store and buy them.

Right, because I am a willful being, and thus until I do, I am not forced to do.

 Pretending that everything happens all at once does not overcome
this. Trying to get away with pretending that sequence of sequence
selection and iteration does not exist is foolish.

Nope, because the program is deterministic, and thus all its future behavior has be fixed and determined, and thus established.

 (a) You determine that you need groceries
(b) You report this need
(c) then you go to the store to buy them
 (a) HHH determines that it needs to abort DDD
(b) HHH reports this this need (as text before the action)
(c) then HHH aborts DDD
 

And I, being willful, am not FORCED to do that sequence. And I need to CORRECTLY determine I need groceries. I might first think I do, and then remember the backup stash that lets me wait a day or two.
But HHH, being deterministc, only follows is programming, so it senses no "need", it just reaches the condition that causes it to abort. But the condition was incorrectly determined, as we can see that by doing so, the behavior of this input has become halting.
So, while HHH was stuck in the sequence by its programming, it appears that its programming had an incorrect condition telling it to abort and report non-halting, so its code is just incorrect.
YOU as the programmer are supposedly willful, and need to make the right decisions, but apparently you don't think far enough ahead to see that by HHH aborting its simulation it can make the DDD built on it in this was be halting.
It appears you think it is ok to just be wrong and claim to be right, instead of working harder, or admitting that you can't make a program that answers the question.
In other words, you CHOOSE TO LIE rather that doing what was right,