Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
| comp.ai.philosophy | Perhaps we should ask SkyNet about this | 59,235 messages |
[ << oldest | < older | list | newer > | newest >> ]
| Message 57,654 of 59,235 |
| olcott to Richard Damon |
| Re: Title: A Structural Analysis of the |
| 25 Jul 25 16:51:25 |
XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic From: polcott333@gmail.com On 7/25/2025 4:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 7/25/25 4:34 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 7/25/2025 3:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 7/25/25 3:50 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 7/25/2025 1:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 7/25/25 1:31 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 7/25/2025 12:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/25/25 10:43 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/25/2025 8:56 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 22:58:34 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No, you have just been too stupid to see your error and to >>>>>>>>>> morally >>>>>>>>>> corrupt to admit it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yet another ad hominem attack, you are not very good at this >>>>>>>>> are you Damon? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> /Flibble >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think that he does this to attempt to mask his ignorance. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, it is just the method that you both use to try to mask your >>>>>>> lies. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I point out your stupidity to help people understand where you >>>>>>> are coming from so they don't try to find the logic in your >>>>>>> illogical statements. >>>>>> >>>>>> Try not using any insults and only rely on correct reasoning. >>>>>> When you do this your reasoning errors will be laid bare. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Only if you first promise to also stop calling people liars. >>>>> >>>>> Remember, YOU started it, and refused the offer of a cease-fire. >>>>> >>>>> You will need to get Fibber to agree to, or I will continue on him. >>>> >>>> OK I will refrain from calling anyone a liar while >>>> I see that this is mutually respected and there is >>>> no evidence that the reply is in any way dishonest. >>> >>> Since you see anyone who disagrees with you as being dishonest that >>> doesn't count. >>> >> >> Disagreeing doesn't count as dishonesty. > > Yes, but you call anyone who disagrees with you as being dishonest. > I didn't call them a liar just because they disagreed. I called them a liar when they changed the words that I said and then used these changed words as the basis of their rebuttal. > >> Changing the subject away from DDD simulated by >> HHH to anything else counts as dishonesty. > > No, Yes you are a liar otherwise. > insisting that the criteria *IS* DDD simulated by HHH is the > dishonest claim, since it is a violation of the definition of halting. > If you want to insist on lying I will not stop calling you a liar. > The only simulation that can be used as a replacement for the direct > execution is the CORRECT (which means complete with no aborting) That you expect a correct simulation of a non-terminating input to be infinite is fucking nuts. When one instruction of a non-terminating input is correctly emulated then it is dishonest to conclude that zero instructions were emulated correctly. > SIMULATION of the exact input, which must include in it ALL the code used. > >> >>> I won't call you a liar unless you say a lie. >>> >> >> The we must also agree that an actual lie only >> includes an INTENTIONALLY false statement. > > Except it doesn't, as, as shown, it also includes statements that are > just blantently incorrect. > Since that is not the way that most people take the meaning of the word your use of this term in that way is libelous. >> >>>> >>>> For example when I refer to DDD correctly emulated >>>> by HHH I mean that one or more instructions of DDD >>>> have been emulated by HHH according to the rules >>>> of the x86 language. This does include HHH emulating >>>> itself when the emulated DDD calls HHH(DDD). >>> >>> But that ISN'T the definition of a correct simulation, so the >>> statement is just a LIE. >>> >> >> That HHH emulates the exact sequence of machine code bytes >> that it is presented with according to the rules of the x86 >> language *IS THE DEFINITION OF CORRECT EMULATION* > > No, you miss the requirement that to be correct, it must continue to the > final state, as that is also part of the x86 language. > That is fucking nuts. Non-terminating inputs cannot reach any final state. > Partial simulations are NOT "correct" when talking about non-halting. > |
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca