XPost: sci.logic

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 are just showing you do not understand that ESSENTIAL characteristic
of programs, and thus are not qualitifed to talk about the field.

PERIOD.

You are just too stupid.

A computer programs behavior for all inputs is fixed when it is written.

PERIOD.

And thus, it does not need to be first run for that behavior to exist.

We only need to run a program so WE can KNOW what that behavior is.

THus, you also show you do not understand the nature of what TRUTH is,
and thus are not qualified to talk about it.

Reminder, YOU have admitted that you you nonsense for logic, as you
claimed that you idea that Godel was wrong was proven by a
Diagonalization proof, and when asked for it indeicated that such proofs
were just nonsense.

Thus, the logic of you claim was nonsense, that you weren't even able to
show.

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