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 57,655 of 59,235 |
| olcott to Richard Damon |
| Re: Title: A Structural Analysis of the |
| 25 Jul 25 18:42:34 |
XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic From: polcott333@gmail.com On 7/25/2025 5:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 7/25/25 5:51 PM, olcott wrote: >> 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