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

On 7/6/24 9:31 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/6/2024 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/6/24 8:58 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/6/2024 7:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/6/24 8:26 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/6/2024 7:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

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.

>
*It seems that you are simply too much of a liar*
You can already have the groceries that you just ran out
of before thinking that you need to go to the store or
going to the store.
>
>

>
Nope.
>

>
*Your problem seems to be that you are too much of a liar*
>
You go to the store and buy groceries
then you lie and say that you need groceries
then you see that you bought the wrong ones
>
You say that you need groceries without checking.
then you buy the wrong groceries because you did not check
then you see that you bought the wrong ones
>
>

>
Which is all just Red Herring, as I am not a program.
>

 You provided rhetoric instead of reasoning sufficiently
proving that you are a liar.
  >>>>> And I, being willful, am not FORCED to do that sequence.
 Meaning that you can already have the groceries before you
went to the store to get them.
 

Yes, I have will and can choose what I do.
HHH does NOT have will, but is deterministic and always works the same for the same input.
Since your HHH aborts is simulation, it WILL abort its simulation, and thus when DDD calls HHH(DDD) it WILL return and so will DDD.
That is the behavior of a correct simulation by the rules of the x86 programming langauge and the ONLY correct simulation.
HHH's PARTIAL simulation doesn't reach that far, so it doesn't see that behavior, but instead it stops due to INCORRECT programming and returns the wrong answer.
This is all fixed and determined by the code of HHH and DDD, without ever needing to run or simulate either of them.
The fault of HHH getting the wrong answer is NOT on HHH, as it has no will, so can have no fault, the fault goes to the programmer, which is YOU.
YOU have will, but have chosen to IGNORE the fact thatprogram behavior continues even if we stop simulating it, and for deceptively (to your self too) trying to redefine the meaning of what the decider is supposed to do.
You have been caught in your lies, and keep on trying to give a story that has to be right because that is all that HHH could see, but the question isn't about what HHH sees but what the input program does, which has a specific behavior that is factually established by all the code.
You are just too stupid to understand what you are talking about, and thus get caught in your stupid lies with no defense other than try to point to red Herrings to deflect the conversation.
YOU ARE JUST SHOWING YOURSELF TO BE A PATHETIC PATHOLOGICAL LIAR.