From: mikko.levanto@iki.fi   
      
   On 2025-11-09 02:08:11 +0000, olcott said:   
      
   > On 11/8/2025 6:30 PM, Mike Terry wrote:   
   >> On 08/11/2025 20:54, olcott wrote:   
   >>> On 11/8/2025 1:58 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>> "D simulated by H" is literally not a thing. D is simulated by   
   >>>> a simulator, which doesn't care whether it is driven by   
   >>>> events from H, or elsewhere.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> All correct simulations of D show halting.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> Only when you dishonestly ignore that we are only   
   >>> examining the case where D calls its own simulator.   
   >>> What is your motive for being dishonest?   
   >>>   
   >>>> Simulations must be /complete/ to be correct.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> When N steps of D are simulated by H everyone   
   >>> that has enough knowledge of C knows that D   
   >>> simulated by H keeps calling H(D) in recursive   
   >>> simulation until H is smart enough to kill its   
   >>> simulation.   
   >>>   
   >>> Why do you insist on lying about this?   
   >>>   
   >>>>>>    int H(void (*p)(void), interp *s);   
   >>>>   
   >>>>  From now on, you must only discuss the above API for simulating   
   >>>> deciders, or any other variant of your choice in which two arguments are   
   >>>> represented: the procedure to be analyzed.  and a freshly instantiated   
   >>>> simulation pointing at that procedure.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> I am going to adapt a C interpreter to do this   
   >>> myself soon enough. You won't be able to get away   
   >>> with your lies for very long.   
   >>   
   >> This is suggesting that you are thinking that producing your C   
   >> interpreter will somehow further your argument and prove your point?   
   >> That is a total delusion - it will change nothing.   
   >>   
   >> Do you remember when you said you were going to write your "directed   
   >> acyclic graph notation parser"?  I and others told you that there was   
   >> no need to do that, because it will not prove anything,   
   >   
   > I have proved that it does prove that the Liar Paradox   
   > is semantically unsound and people here don't lie about   
   > this they are simply too stupid to understand that I   
   > am correct.   
      
   You don't need a C interpreter in order to prove that the Liar Paradox   
   is semantically unsound. It is quite clear from simpler considerations.   
      
   > Only people that understand what a cycle in the directed   
   > graph of the evaluation sequence can understand that I   
   > am correct.   
      
   You are not correct. You can be correct about something but that does   
   not mean that you be correct about other things.   
      
   --   
   Mikko   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)