XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: richard@damon-family.org   
      
   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.   
      
   That is all that is needed.   
      
   You just don't understand the essential nature of how logic works.   
      
   > As soon as HHH correctly determines that it must abort the   
   > simulation of its input to prevent its own infinite execution   
   > HHH is necessarily correct to reject this finite string as   
   > specifying non-halting behavior.   
   >   
      
   But it doesn't ever do that.   
      
   It determines that some other HHH with some other version of the input   
   DDD doesn't halt.   
      
   Any HHH that aborts, does so because it reached the point it was   
   programmed to do so. The PROGRAMMER is the one that needs to decide on   
   the algorithm to correctly determine that condition, which there,   
   unfortunately for you since you decided to take that job, doesn't exist.   
      
   When you design HHH, you need to think about EVERY possible input, since   
   that is what the problem statement says, INCLUDING inputs that happen to   
   be based on you. Because of that, everytime you make change in your   
   design based on the behavior of one input, the "pathological" input you   
   need to handle changes. This ability of pathological relationships, and   
   the fact that you need to be designing a causal program means that you   
   have yourself stuck in a corner. The program that the input represents   
   is a fixed program once we get to that point, and thus when you argue   
   about "NO HHH" can get this input right, you are wrong, as version that   
   run longer on THIS input, based on this HHH will reach the final state   
   and show this NHH was wrong, but those HHHs also have a DDD that was   
   based on them that they will get wrong.   
      
   Bsically, you are looking at your infinite set wrong, HHH can't justify   
   its behavior based on the actions of a DIFFERENT input, but you logic   
   tries to do that.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)