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 57,774 of 59,235    |
|    Fred. Zwarts to All    |
|    Re: There are zero chances in Hell that     |
|    02 Aug 25 11:38:03    |
   
   XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl   
      
   Op 02.aug.2025 om 04:09 schreef olcott:   
   > On 8/1/2025 8:01 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:   
   >> Olcott, give it a fucking rest: what you are banging on about has nothing   
   >> to do with the Halting Problem.   
   >>   
   >> Damon, stop feeding Olcott: you are just talking over each other at this   
   >> point.   
   >>   
   >> /Flibble   
   >   
   > Every attempt to refute me has been counter-factual.   
   > The survival of life an Earth depends on a correct   
   > understanding of truth.   
   >   
   > The Tarski Undefinability theorem that incorrectly   
   > "proves" that a Boolean True(L,x) predicate cannot   
   > be consistently defined relies on the same structure   
   > as the conventional HP proofs.   
   >   
   > Because of this humans have no perfectly objective   
   > way to discern truth from very well crafted lies,   
   > thus the well crafted lies win.   
   >   
   > Richard is still trying to get away with saying that   
   > the repeating pattern shown below does not exist.   
   >   
   > void DDD()   
   > {   
   > HHH(DDD);   
   > return;   
   > }   
   >   
   > HHH simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD)   
   > that simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD)   
   > that simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD)   
   > that simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD)   
   > that simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD)   
   > that simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD)   
   > that simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD)   
   > that simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD)   
   > that simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD)   
   >   
      
   As usual incorrect claims without evidence.   
   A finite recursion is not a non-halting behaviour.   
      
   You are trying to get away with the idea that if you close your eyes for   
   the halting behaviour, it does not exists.   
   The simulating HHH aborts before it reaches the final halt state of the   
   simulated HHH that has the same code to abort, so it does not see it and   
   pretends that it does not exist.   
      
   Changing the meaning of the words will not help you to find the truth.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)   
|
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca