• Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal [Ben targets my posts to disco

    From olcott@21:1/5 to Ben Bacarisse on Tue Jun 20 14:57:53 2023
    XPost: sci.logic, comp.theory

    On 6/19/2023 3:08 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
    Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> writes:

    On Monday, June 19, 2023 at 5:58:39 PM UTC+2, olcott wrote:

    the full semantics of the question <bla>

    Look, dumbo, we are asking the simple question: "Does D(D) halt?"

    Now, D(D) either halts or doesn't halt.

    Hence the CORRECT yes/no-answer to the question "Does D(D) halt?" is
    "yes" iff D(D) halts and "no" if D(D) doesn't halt.

    Just a reminder that you are arguing with someone who has declared that
    the wrong answer is the right one:

    Me: "do you still assert that [...] false is the "correct" answer even
    though P(P) halts?"

    PO: Yes that is the correct answer even though P(P) halts.


    Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal [Ben targets my posts to
    discourage honest dialogue]

    *Ben Bacarisse targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue*
    *Ben Bacarisse targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue*
    *Ben Bacarisse targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue*

    When Ben pointed out that H(P,P) reports that P(P) does not halt when
    P(P) does halt this seems to be a contradiction to people that lack a
    complete understanding.

    Because of this I changed the semantic meaning of a return value of 0
    from H to mean either
    (a) that P(P) does not halt <or>
    (b) P(P) specifically targets H to do the opposite of whatever Boolean
    value that H returns.

    When H(P,P) reports that P correctly simulated by H cannot possibly
    reach its own last instruction this is an easily verified fact, thus
    P(P) does not halt from the point of view of H.

    When H returns 0 for input P means either that P does not halt or
    P specifically targets H to do the opposite of whatever Boolean
    value that H returns not even people with little understanding can
    say that this is contradictory.





    --
    Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
    hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to olcott on Tue Jun 20 16:34:39 2023
    XPost: sci.logic, comp.theory

    On 6/20/23 3:57 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 6/19/2023 3:08 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
    Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> writes:

    On Monday, June 19, 2023 at 5:58:39 PM UTC+2, olcott wrote:

    the full semantics of the question <bla>

    Look, dumbo, we are asking the simple question: "Does D(D) halt?"

    Now, D(D) either halts or doesn't halt.

    Hence the CORRECT yes/no-answer to the question "Does D(D) halt?" is
    "yes" iff D(D) halts and "no" if D(D) doesn't halt.

    Just a reminder that you are arguing with someone who has declared that
    the wrong answer is the right one:

    Me: "do you still assert that [...] false is the "correct" answer even
         though P(P) halts?"

    PO: Yes that is the correct answer even though P(P) halts.


    Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal [Ben targets my posts to
    discourage honest dialogue]

    *Ben Bacarisse targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue*
    *Ben Bacarisse targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue*
    *Ben Bacarisse targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue*

    No, YOU DO by claiming your words don't actually mean what they say.


    When Ben pointed out that H(P,P) reports that P(P) does not halt when
    P(P) does halt this seems to be a contradiction to people that lack a complete understanding.

    But since P(P) (now D(D) ) does halt, how do you explain that H saying
    it doesn't is correct?


    Because of this I changed the semantic meaning of a return value of 0
    from H to mean either

    So you are admitting to LYIHG about the problem you are doing/

    OLCOTT --- ADMITTED LIAR

    (a) that P(P) does not halt <or>
    (b) P(P) specifically targets H to do the opposite of whatever Boolean
    value that H returns.

    When H(P,P) reports that P correctly simulated by H cannot possibly
    reach its own last instruction this is an easily verified fact, thus
    P(P) does not halt from the point of view of H.

    When H returns 0 for input P means either that P does not halt or
    P specifically targets H to do the opposite of whatever Boolean
    value that H returns not even people with little understanding can
    say that this is contradictory.






    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From olcott@21:1/5 to Richard Damon on Tue Jun 20 15:42:53 2023
    XPost: sci.logic, comp.theory

    On 6/20/2023 3:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 6/20/23 3:57 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 6/19/2023 3:08 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
    Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> writes:

    On Monday, June 19, 2023 at 5:58:39 PM UTC+2, olcott wrote:

    the full semantics of the question <bla>

    Look, dumbo, we are asking the simple question: "Does D(D) halt?"

    Now, D(D) either halts or doesn't halt.

    Hence the CORRECT yes/no-answer to the question "Does D(D) halt?" is
    "yes" iff D(D) halts and "no" if D(D) doesn't halt.

    Just a reminder that you are arguing with someone who has declared that
    the wrong answer is the right one:

    Me: "do you still assert that [...] false is the "correct" answer even
         though P(P) halts?"

    PO: Yes that is the correct answer even though P(P) halts.


    Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal [Ben targets my posts to
    discourage honest dialogue]

    *Ben Bacarisse targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue*
    *Ben Bacarisse targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue*
    *Ben Bacarisse targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue*

    No, YOU DO by claiming your words don't actually mean what they say.


    When Ben pointed out that H(P,P) reports that P(P) does not halt when
    P(P) does halt this seems to be a contradiction to people that lack a
    complete understanding.

    But since P(P) (now D(D) ) does halt, how do you explain that H saying
    it doesn't is correct?


    Because of this I changed the semantic meaning of a return value of 0
    from H to mean either

    So you are admitting to LYIHG about the problem you are doing/

    OLCOTT --- ADMITTED LIAR


    When H(P,P) reports that P correctly simulated by H cannot possibly
    reach its own last instruction this is an easily verified fact, thus
    P(P) does not halt from the point of view of H.

    This is the same thing as the Facebook post where two people are looking
    at the same symbol that is a "9" or a "6" depending on your point of
    view.


    --
    Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
    hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to olcott on Tue Jun 20 16:52:36 2023
    XPost: sci.logic, comp.theory

    On 6/20/23 4:42 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 6/20/2023 3:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 6/20/23 3:57 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 6/19/2023 3:08 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
    Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> writes:

    On Monday, June 19, 2023 at 5:58:39 PM UTC+2, olcott wrote:

    the full semantics of the question <bla>

    Look, dumbo, we are asking the simple question: "Does D(D) halt?"

    Now, D(D) either halts or doesn't halt.

    Hence the CORRECT yes/no-answer to the question "Does D(D) halt?" is >>>>> "yes" iff D(D) halts and "no" if D(D) doesn't halt.

    Just a reminder that you are arguing with someone who has declared that >>>> the wrong answer is the right one:

    Me: "do you still assert that [...] false is the "correct" answer even >>>>      though P(P) halts?"

    PO: Yes that is the correct answer even though P(P) halts.


    Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal [Ben targets my posts to
    discourage honest dialogue]

    *Ben Bacarisse targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue*
    *Ben Bacarisse targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue*
    *Ben Bacarisse targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue*

    No, YOU DO by claiming your words don't actually mean what they say.


    When Ben pointed out that H(P,P) reports that P(P) does not halt when
    P(P) does halt this seems to be a contradiction to people that lack a
    complete understanding.

    But since P(P) (now D(D) ) does halt, how do you explain that H saying
    it doesn't is correct?


    Because of this I changed the semantic meaning of a return value of 0
    from H to mean either

    So you are admitting to LYIHG about the problem you are doing/

    OLCOTT --- ADMITTED LIAR


    When H(P,P) reports that P correctly simulated by H cannot possibly
    reach its own last instruction this is an easily verified fact, thus
    P(P) does not halt from the point of view of H.

    Which isn't the Halting Problem criteria, so you are lying about worki g
    on the halting problem.

    Note also, your H never actual DOES a "Correct Simulation" if it answer
    the question, so your criteria is just invalid, so again, YOU LIE.


    This is the same thing as the Facebook post where two people are looking
    at the same symbol that is a "9" or a "6" depending on your point of
    view.


    Nope. You are just too stupid to think.

    You are so stupid, you don't see that you are lying, which is why you
    ara a pathological liar. You are just proving it.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From olcott@21:1/5 to Richard Damon on Tue Jun 20 16:39:11 2023
    XPost: sci.logic, comp.theory

    On 6/20/2023 3:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 6/20/23 4:42 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 6/20/2023 3:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 6/20/23 3:57 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 6/19/2023 3:08 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
    Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> writes:

    On Monday, June 19, 2023 at 5:58:39 PM UTC+2, olcott wrote:

    the full semantics of the question <bla>

    Look, dumbo, we are asking the simple question: "Does D(D) halt?"

    Now, D(D) either halts or doesn't halt.

    Hence the CORRECT yes/no-answer to the question "Does D(D) halt?" is >>>>>> "yes" iff D(D) halts and "no" if D(D) doesn't halt.

    Just a reminder that you are arguing with someone who has declared
    that
    the wrong answer is the right one:

    Me: "do you still assert that [...] false is the "correct" answer even >>>>>      though P(P) halts?"

    PO: Yes that is the correct answer even though P(P) halts.


    Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal [Ben targets my posts to
    discourage honest dialogue]

    *Ben Bacarisse targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue*
    *Ben Bacarisse targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue*
    *Ben Bacarisse targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue*

    No, YOU DO by claiming your words don't actually mean what they say.


    When Ben pointed out that H(P,P) reports that P(P) does not halt when
    P(P) does halt this seems to be a contradiction to people that lack a
    complete understanding.

    But since P(P) (now D(D) ) does halt, how do you explain that H
    saying it doesn't is correct?


    Because of this I changed the semantic meaning of a return value of 0
    from H to mean either

    So you are admitting to LYIHG about the problem you are doing/

    OLCOTT --- ADMITTED LIAR


    When H(P,P) reports that P correctly simulated by H cannot possibly
    reach its own last instruction this is an easily verified fact, thus
    P(P) does not halt from the point of view of H.

    Which isn't the Halting Problem criteria, so you are lying about worki g
    on the halting problem.


    Try and explain how any H can be defined that can be embedded
    within Linz Ĥ such that embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to Ĥ.qy or Ĥ.qn
    consistently with the behavior of Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩.

    If it is impossible to do this then you have affirmed that ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is a
    self-contradictory input to embedded_H.

    If it is possible to do this then explain the details of how it is done.

    https://www.liarparadox.org/Linz_Proof.pdf

    Once we know that the halting problem question is an incorrect question
    then we can transform it into a correct question.



    --
    Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
    hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to olcott on Tue Jun 20 17:53:32 2023
    XPost: sci.logic, comp.theory

    On 6/20/23 5:39 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 6/20/2023 3:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 6/20/23 4:42 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 6/20/2023 3:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 6/20/23 3:57 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 6/19/2023 3:08 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
    Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> writes:

    On Monday, June 19, 2023 at 5:58:39 PM UTC+2, olcott wrote:

    the full semantics of the question <bla>

    Look, dumbo, we are asking the simple question: "Does D(D) halt?" >>>>>>>
    Now, D(D) either halts or doesn't halt.

    Hence the CORRECT yes/no-answer to the question "Does D(D) halt?" is >>>>>>> "yes" iff D(D) halts and "no" if D(D) doesn't halt.

    Just a reminder that you are arguing with someone who has declared >>>>>> that
    the wrong answer is the right one:

    Me: "do you still assert that [...] false is the "correct" answer
    even
         though P(P) halts?"

    PO: Yes that is the correct answer even though P(P) halts.


    Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal [Ben targets my posts to
    discourage honest dialogue]

    *Ben Bacarisse targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue*
    *Ben Bacarisse targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue*
    *Ben Bacarisse targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue*

    No, YOU DO by claiming your words don't actually mean what they say.


    When Ben pointed out that H(P,P) reports that P(P) does not halt when >>>>> P(P) does halt this seems to be a contradiction to people that lack a >>>>> complete understanding.

    But since P(P) (now D(D) ) does halt, how do you explain that H
    saying it doesn't is correct?


    Because of this I changed the semantic meaning of a return value of 0 >>>>> from H to mean either

    So you are admitting to LYIHG about the problem you are doing/

    OLCOTT --- ADMITTED LIAR


    When H(P,P) reports that P correctly simulated by H cannot possibly
    reach its own last instruction this is an easily verified fact, thus
    P(P) does not halt from the point of view of H.

    Which isn't the Halting Problem criteria, so you are lying about worki
    g on the halting problem.


    Try and explain how any H can be defined that can be embedded
    within Linz Ĥ such that embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to Ĥ.qy or Ĥ.qn
    consistently with the behavior of Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩.

    It can't, that is what the Theorem Proves.

    That is because the Halting Function just isn't computable,


    If it is impossible to do this then you have affirmed that ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is a
    self-contradictory input to embedded_H.

    Nope, because it just doesn't exist.

    Since no H can exist that meets the requirements, an H that meets the requirements doesn't exist, and so no H^ exists.


    If it is possible to do this then explain the details of how it is done.

    https://www.liarparadox.org/Linz_Proof.pdf

    Once we know that the halting problem question is an incorrect question
    then we can transform it into a correct question.


    But it isn't an "Incorrect Question", but the definition of what a
    "Correct Question" is.

    Remember, the Question of the Halting Problem Theorem is, Can an H exist
    that meets the requirements.

    This Question has an answer of NO.

    The Question of the Requirements is to decide if an given input will
    Halt of Not.

    This question has an answer for any input you can actually create.

    The answer for the D built on your claimed H, is that it Halts, while
    your claimed H says it doesn't.

    Your "requirements" that you are claiming is that we must create a halt
    decider for this template, there is no such requirement, since the
    answer to the Halting Problem Theorem is NO, and you thinking is just
    stuck in a rabbit hole trying to require the impossible, because you
    refuse to face the reality that some things are just impossible, and
    that is ok.

    This is perhaps part of your mental defect.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From olcott@21:1/5 to Richard Damon on Tue Jun 20 17:07:49 2023
    XPost: sci.logic, comp.theory

    On 6/20/2023 4:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 6/20/23 5:39 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 6/20/2023 3:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 6/20/23 4:42 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 6/20/2023 3:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 6/20/23 3:57 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 6/19/2023 3:08 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
    Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> writes:

    On Monday, June 19, 2023 at 5:58:39 PM UTC+2, olcott wrote:

    the full semantics of the question <bla>

    Look, dumbo, we are asking the simple question: "Does D(D) halt?" >>>>>>>>
    Now, D(D) either halts or doesn't halt.

    Hence the CORRECT yes/no-answer to the question "Does D(D)
    halt?" is
    "yes" iff D(D) halts and "no" if D(D) doesn't halt.

    Just a reminder that you are arguing with someone who has
    declared that
    the wrong answer is the right one:

    Me: "do you still assert that [...] false is the "correct" answer >>>>>>> even
         though P(P) halts?"

    PO: Yes that is the correct answer even though P(P) halts.


    Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal [Ben targets my posts to
    discourage honest dialogue]

    *Ben Bacarisse targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue*
    *Ben Bacarisse targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue*
    *Ben Bacarisse targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue*

    No, YOU DO by claiming your words don't actually mean what they say. >>>>>

    When Ben pointed out that H(P,P) reports that P(P) does not halt when >>>>>> P(P) does halt this seems to be a contradiction to people that lack a >>>>>> complete understanding.

    But since P(P) (now D(D) ) does halt, how do you explain that H
    saying it doesn't is correct?


    Because of this I changed the semantic meaning of a return value of 0 >>>>>> from H to mean either

    So you are admitting to LYIHG about the problem you are doing/

    OLCOTT --- ADMITTED LIAR


    When H(P,P) reports that P correctly simulated by H cannot possibly
    reach its own last instruction this is an easily verified fact, thus
    P(P) does not halt from the point of view of H.

    Which isn't the Halting Problem criteria, so you are lying about
    worki g on the halting problem.


    Try and explain how any H can be defined that can be embedded
    within Linz Ĥ such that embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to Ĥ.qy or Ĥ.qn
    consistently with the behavior of Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩.

    It can't, that is what the Theorem Proves.

    That is because the Halting Function just isn't computable,


    If it is impossible to do this then you have affirmed that ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is a
    self-contradictory input to embedded_H.

    Nope, because it just doesn't exist.

    Since no H can exist that meets the requirements, an H that meets the requirements doesn't exist, and so no H^ exists.


    If it is possible to do this then explain the details of how it is done.

    https://www.liarparadox.org/Linz_Proof.pdf

    Once we know that the halting problem question is an incorrect question
    then we can transform it into a correct question.


    But it isn't an "Incorrect Question", but the definition of what a
    "Correct Question" is.

    Remember, the Question of the Halting Problem Theorem is, Can an H exist
    that meets the requirements.

    This Question has an answer of NO.


    That is exactly analogous to:
    (1) Can anyone correctly answer this question:
    (2) Will your answer to this question be no?

    The answer to (1) is "no" only because (2) is self-contradictory.



    --
    Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
    hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to olcott on Tue Jun 20 18:52:03 2023
    XPost: sci.logic, comp.theory

    On 6/20/23 6:07 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 6/20/2023 4:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 6/20/23 5:39 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 6/20/2023 3:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 6/20/23 4:42 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 6/20/2023 3:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 6/20/23 3:57 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 6/19/2023 3:08 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
    Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> writes:

    On Monday, June 19, 2023 at 5:58:39 PM UTC+2, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>
    the full semantics of the question <bla>

    Look, dumbo, we are asking the simple question: "Does D(D) halt?" >>>>>>>>>
    Now, D(D) either halts or doesn't halt.

    Hence the CORRECT yes/no-answer to the question "Does D(D)
    halt?" is
    "yes" iff D(D) halts and "no" if D(D) doesn't halt.

    Just a reminder that you are arguing with someone who has
    declared that
    the wrong answer is the right one:

    Me: "do you still assert that [...] false is the "correct"
    answer even
         though P(P) halts?"

    PO: Yes that is the correct answer even though P(P) halts.


    Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal [Ben targets my posts to >>>>>>> discourage honest dialogue]

    *Ben Bacarisse targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue*
    *Ben Bacarisse targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue*
    *Ben Bacarisse targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue*

    No, YOU DO by claiming your words don't actually mean what they say. >>>>>>

    When Ben pointed out that H(P,P) reports that P(P) does not halt >>>>>>> when
    P(P) does halt this seems to be a contradiction to people that
    lack a
    complete understanding.

    But since P(P) (now D(D) ) does halt, how do you explain that H
    saying it doesn't is correct?


    Because of this I changed the semantic meaning of a return value >>>>>>> of 0
    from H to mean either

    So you are admitting to LYIHG about the problem you are doing/

    OLCOTT --- ADMITTED LIAR


    When H(P,P) reports that P correctly simulated by H cannot possibly
    reach its own last instruction this is an easily verified fact, thus >>>>> P(P) does not halt from the point of view of H.

    Which isn't the Halting Problem criteria, so you are lying about
    worki g on the halting problem.


    Try and explain how any H can be defined that can be embedded
    within Linz Ĥ such that embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to Ĥ.qy or Ĥ.qn
    consistently with the behavior of Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩.

    It can't, that is what the Theorem Proves.

    That is because the Halting Function just isn't computable,


    If it is impossible to do this then you have affirmed that ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is a
    self-contradictory input to embedded_H.

    Nope, because it just doesn't exist.

    Since no H can exist that meets the requirements, an H that meets the
    requirements doesn't exist, and so no H^ exists.


    If it is possible to do this then explain the details of how it is done. >>>
    https://www.liarparadox.org/Linz_Proof.pdf

    Once we know that the halting problem question is an incorrect question
    then we can transform it into a correct question.


    But it isn't an "Incorrect Question", but the definition of what a
    "Correct Question" is.

    Remember, the Question of the Halting Problem Theorem is, Can an H
    exist that meets the requirements.

    This Question has an answer of NO.


    That is exactly analogous to:
    (1) Can anyone correctly answer this question:
    (2) Will your answer to this question be no?

    The answer to (1) is "no" only because (2) is self-contradictory.


    Nope, totally different questions, but you are too stupid to understand.

    The question is NOT about some future event, but about something that
    has already been determined. To ask about a machine, the machine must
    exist, and thus the answer is fixed.

    We conventionally talk about the machine's behavior in the future, as
    there is no sense deciding on a machine we have already run, but its
    behavior is NOT just in the future, but was fixed as soon as the machine
    was created.

    Not so with a question about a volitional beings future behavior.

    Thus, the questions are VERY different.


    Maybe you are just stuck on the idea of Free Will and Determinism and
    can't figure out what is rules by what.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)