XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic
On 7/13/24 12:43 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/13/2024 11:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/13/24 12:19 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/13/2024 11:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/13/24 11:34 AM, olcott wrote:
On 7/13/2024 10:25 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/13/24 11:15 AM, olcott wrote:
In other words when you are very hungry you have the
free will to decide that you are not hungry at all
and never eat anything ever again with no ill effects
to your health what-so-ever.
Just shows that though I have free will, I am also in a Universe
with a lot of determinism.
Try and use this free will to make a square circle.
Nope, just shows you don't know what you are talking about and
need to switch to Red Herring because you lost the argument.
Face it, all you have proved is that you are nothing but a
pathetic ignorant pathological lying idiot.
After HHH has already aborted its simulation of DDD
and returns to the DDD that called it is not the same
behavior as DDD simulated by HHH that must be aborted.
Right, and the question is about the behavior of DDD,
the input finite string not an external process that HHH
has no access to.
Right, but the program it represents, and the question is about IS. >>>>>>
HHH cannot be correctly required to report on the behavior
of an external process that it has no access to.
But it has access to the complete representation of it.
In other words you are still hungry AFTER you filled
yourself with food BECAUSE you are the same person
thus the change in process state DOES NOT MATTER.
Maybe you need to stop eating so much Herring with Red Sauce, and
focus on some of the errors pointed out in your logic rather than just
ignoring them, which, in effect, just admitss that you have no idea
how to get out of your lies.
You continue to stupidly insist that DDD specifies
the same behavior before its simulation has been
aborted than after it simulation has been aborted.
And you think that HHH partial observation of the some of the behavior
of DDD affects it.
The behavior that HHH does with respect to its CALLER affects DDD, since
DDD calls HHH.
The behavior that HHH does with respect to its simulation does not,
except as far as it affects it behavior with resoect to its caller.
HHH aborting its simulation does NOTHING to the behavior of DDD, except
to establish that the HHH that DDD calls will abort its simulation.
DDD and HHH have code that defines the behavior of both of them.
If HHH aborts its simulation, for ANY REASON, and returns, then the DDD
tha calls that HHH will halt.
Thus, ANY HHH that reports HHH(DDD) is non-halting, is BY DEFINTION, wrong.
Now you stupidly insist that this is not analogous
to being hungry before you have eaten and not being
hungry after you have eaten.
And you don't seem to understand how determinism works.
I know that if I eat I will become not hunger, even before I start to
eat, and
That you call me a liar will send you to Hell.
I don't want that.
But I don't lie, you do.
You just don't understand even the basics of that which you talk about,
which is why you keep on need to go to totally unrelated ideas.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)