Re: Liar detector: Olcott is a LIAR.

On 7/7/24 9:58 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/7/2024 5:19 AM, joes wrote:

Am Sat, 06 Jul 2024 18:09:16 -0500 schrieb olcott:

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,

Nope, because HHH is deterministic in behavior,

>
It cannot report on the effect of what it did before it does this
>

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.

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

Therefore it cannot report that it will run forever when it hasn’t
simulated the abort yet.
>

Maybe everyone here has severe ADD. Richard said that he has ADD.

And you clearly have a mental problem for not understanding the truth.

 <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
     If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
     until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
     stop running unless aborted then
      H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
     specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>

And "Correct Simulation" there means a simulation that exactly reproduces the behavior of the program represented by the input, which means a simulation that is nor aborted.
Since you H neither does that nor correctly determines the behavior of such a simulation (since it will halt, it can't be correctly determined to be non-halting) it can not use the second clause.

 (a) HHH determines that it must abort DDD

No, it THINKS it has determined that, because the programmer lied..

(b) HHH reports that DDD will not stop unless aborted

Which is false, as an actual correct simulaton of the input will stop.

(c) HHH aborts its simulation of DDD

Which had to have been done before (b) in order to do (b), so you don't even understand the needed order.

 If HHH reported that it did not need to abort DDD before HHH
aborts DDD this is like you need groceries and report that
you do not need groceries before you got more groceries: a lie.
 

The problem is that IF HHH aborts its simulation and returns, then the code that has always represented DDD is of a halting program, and thus the programmer thinking he was justified in having HHH abort its simulation at that point was wrong.
Your mind just doesn't understand the concept of actual deterministic conditions determining truth, as you want to be able to make up lies and be able to call them truths.