On 22/04/2023 12:18 am, olcott wrote:
> On 4/21/2023 5:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 4/21/23 11:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/21/2023 7:17 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>> On 20/04/2023 8:20 pm, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/20/2023 2:08 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>> On 20/04/2023 6:49 pm, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/20/2023 12:32 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 19/04/2023 11:52 pm, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/19/2023 4:14 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 19/04/2023 10:10 pm, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/19/2023 3:32 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/04/2023 8:39 pm, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/19/2023 1:47 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/04/2023 11:39 pm, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/18/2023 4:55 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/04/2023 4:58 pm, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/18/2023 6:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/18/23 1:00 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simulating halt decider correctly predicts whether
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or not its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly simulated input can possibly reach its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt. It does this by correctly recognizing several
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patterns in a finite number of steps of correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation. Inputs that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do terminate are simply simulated until they complete.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Except t doesn't o this for the "pathological" program.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The "Pathological Program" when built on such a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Decider that does give an answer, which you say will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be non-halting, and then "Correctly Simulated" by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> giving it representation to a UTM, we see that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation reaches a final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus, your H was WRONG t make the answer. And the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem is you have added a pattern that isn't always
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When a simulating halt decider correctly simulates N
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steps of its input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it derives the exact same N steps that a pure UTM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would derive because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is itself a UTM with extra features.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But if ISN'T a "UTM" any more, because some of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> features you added have removed essential features
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needed for it to be an actual UTM. That you make this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim shows you don't actually know what a UTM is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is like saying a NASCAR Racing Car is a Street
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Legal vehicle, since it started as one and just had
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some extra features axded.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My reviewers cannot show that any of the extra
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> features added to the UTM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change the behavior of the simulated input for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first N steps of simulation:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Watching the behavior doesn't change it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Matching non-halting behavior patterns doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (c) Even aborting the simulation after N steps
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't change the first N steps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No one claims that it doesn't correctly reproduce the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first N steps of the behavior, that is a Strawman
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argumen.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because of all this we can know that the first N
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steps of input D
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated by simulating halt decider H are the actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior that D
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presents to H for these same N steps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *computation that halts*… “the Turing machine will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt whenever it enters a final state”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Linz:1990:234)rrr
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, so we are concerned about the behavior of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ACTUAL machine, not a partial simulation of it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(D,D) returns non-halting, but D(D) Halts, so the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we see (after N steps) that D correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated by H cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly reach its simulated final state in any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite number of steps
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of correct simulation then we have conclusive proof
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that D presents non-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting behavior to H.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But it isn't "Correctly Simulated by H"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You agreed that the first N steps are correctly simulated.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It turns out that the non-halting behavior pattern is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recognized in the first N steps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your assumption that a program that calls H is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting is erroneous:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My new paper anchors its ideas in actual Turing machines
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unequivocal. The first two pages re only about the Linz
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Turing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine based proof.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The H/D material is now on a single page and all reference
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the x86 language has been stripped and replaced with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> analysis entirely in C.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With this new paper even Richard admits that the first N
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steps
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTM based simulated by a simulating halt decider are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessarily the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual behavior of these N steps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Simulating (partial) Halt Deciders Defeat the Halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Problem Proofs*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Simulating_partial_Halt_Deciders_Defeat_the_Halting_Problem_Proofs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> void Px(void (*x)())
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      (void) H(x, x);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      return;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Px halts (it discards the result that H returns); your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider thinks that Px is non-halting which is an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obvious error due to a design flaw in the architecture
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of your decider.  Only the Flibble Signaling Simulating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halt Decider (SSHD) correctly handles this case.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. For H to be a halt decider it must return a halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decision to its caller in finite time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Although H must always return to some caller H is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed to return
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to any caller that essentially calls H in infinite recursion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The Flibble Signaling Simulating Halt Decider (SSHD) does
>>>>>>>>>>>> not have any infinite recursion thereby proving that
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It overrode that behavior that was specified by the machine
>>>>>>>>>>> code for Px.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nope. You SHD is not a halt decider as
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I was not even talking about my SHD, I was talking about how
>>>>>>>>> your program does its simulation incorrectly.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My SSHD does not do its simulation incorrectly: it does its
>>>>>>>> simulation just like I have defined it as evidenced by the fact
>>>>>>>> that it returns a correct halting decision for Px; something
>>>>>>>> your broken SHD gets wrong.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In order for you to have Px simulated by H terminate normally you
>>>>>>> must change the behavior of Px away from the behavior that its
>>>>>>> x86 code specifies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your "x86 code" has nothing to do with how my halt decider works;
>>>>>> I am using an entirely different simulation method, one that
>>>>>> actually works.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> void Px(void (*x)())
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>    (void) H(x, x);
>>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Px correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its
>>>>>>> machine address of: [00001b3d].
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _Px()
>>>>>>> [00001b32] 55         push ebp
>>>>>>> [00001b33] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>> [00001b35] 8b4508     mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>> [00001b38] 50         push eax      // push address of Px
>>>>>>> [00001b39] 8b4d08     mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>> [00001b3c] 51         push ecx      // push address of Px
>>>>>>> [00001b3d] e800faffff call 00001542 // Call H
>>>>>>> [00001b42] 83c408     add esp,+08
>>>>>>> [00001b45] 5d         pop ebp
>>>>>>> [00001b46] c3         ret
>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0021) [00001b46]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What you are doing is the the same as recognizing that
>>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>> never halts, forcing it to break out of its infinite loop and
>>>>>>> jump to
>>>>>>> its "ret" instruction
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>> [00001c62] 55         push ebp
>>>>>>> [00001c63] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>> [00001c65] ebfe       jmp 00001c65
>>>>>>> [00001c67] 5d         pop ebp
>>>>>>> [00001c68] c3         ret
>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [00001c68]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No I am not: there is no infinite loop in Px above; forking the
>>>>>> simulation into two branches and returning a different halt
>>>>>> decision to each branch is a perfectly valid SHD design; again a
>>>>>> design, unlike yours, that actually works.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you say that Px correctly simulated by H ever reaches its own final
>>>>> "return" statement and halts you are incorrect.
>>>>
>>>> Px halts if H is (or is part of) a genuine halt decider.
>>>
>>> The simulated Px only halts if it reaches its own final state in a
>>> finite number of steps of correct simulation. It can't possibly do this.
>>
>> So, you're saying that a UTM doesn't do a "Correct Simulation"?
>>
>
> Always with the strawman error.
> I am saying that when Px is correctly simulated by H it cannot possibly
> reach its own simulated "return" instruction in any finite number of
> steps because Px is defined to have a pathological relationship to H.
>
> When we examine the behavior of Px simulated by a pure simulator or even
> another simulating halt decider such as H1 having no such pathological
> relationship as the basis of the actual behavior of the input to H we
> are comparing apples to lemons and rejecting the apples because lemons
> are too sour.

On 4/25/23 11:45 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/25/2023 6:56 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 4/25/23 12:29 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/24/2023 6:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 4/24/23 10:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/21/2023 9:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/21/23 10:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/21/2023 8:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/21/23 8:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/21/2023 6:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/21/23 7:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/21/2023 5:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/21/23 11:35 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/21/2023 6:18 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, you don't understand the nature of simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that the following
>>>>>>>>>>>>> verbatim paragraph is correct:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a) If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
>>>>>>>>>>>>> input D until H
>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop
>>>>>>>>>>>>> running
>>>>>>>>>>>>> unless aborted then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that D
>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus it is established that:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The behavior of D correctly simulated by H
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the correct behavior to measure.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *IF* H correctly simulates per the definition of a UTM
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It doesn't, so it isn't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The behavior of ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated by embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the correct behavior to measure.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Since the simulation done by embedded_H does not meet the
>>>>>>>>>>>> definition of "correct simulation" that Professer Sipser
>>>>>>>>>>>> uses, your arguement is VOID.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You are just PROVING your stupidity.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Always with the strawman error.
>>>>>>>>>>> I am saying that when ⟨Ĥ⟩ is correctly simulated by
>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H it cannot
>>>>>>>>>>> possibly reach its own simulated final state of ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩ in any
>>>>>>>>>>> finite
>>>>>>>>>>> number of steps because Ĥ is defined to have a pathological
>>>>>>>>>>> relationship
>>>>>>>>>>> to embedded_H.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Since H never "Correctly Simulates" the input per the
>>>>>>>>>> definition that allows using a simulation instead of the
>>>>>>>>>> actual machines behavior, YOUR method is the STRAWMAN.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When we examine the behavior of ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by a pure UTM
>>>>>>>>>>> or even
>>>>>>>>>>> another simulating halt decider such as embedded_H1 having no
>>>>>>>>>>> such
>>>>>>>>>>> pathological relationship as the basis of the actual behavior
>>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>> input to embedded_H we are comparing apples to lemons and
>>>>>>>>>>> rejecting the
>>>>>>>>>>> apples because lemons are too sour.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Maybe, but the question is asking for the lemons that the pure
>>>>>>>>>> simulator gives, not the apples that you H gives.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> H is just doing the wrong thing.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Your failure to see that just shows how blind you are to the
>>>>>>>>>> actual truth of the system.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> H MUST answer about the behavior of the actual machine to be a
>>>>>>>>>> Halt Decider, since that is what the mapping a Halt Decider is
>>>>>>>>>> supposed to answer is based on.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When a simulating halt decider or even a plain UTM examines the
>>>>>>>>> behavior
>>>>>>>>> of its input and the SHD or UTM has a pathological relationship
>>>>>>>>> to its
>>>>>>>>> input then when another SHD or UTM not having a pathological
>>>>>>>>> relationship to this input is an incorrect proxy for the actual
>>>>>>>>> behavior
>>>>>>>>> of this actual input to the original SHD or UTM.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope. If an input has your "pathological" relationship to a UTM,
>>>>>>>> then YES, the UTM will generate an infinite behavior, but so
>>>>>>>> does the machine itself, and ANY UTM will see that same infinite
>>>>>>>> behavior.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The point is that that behavior of the input to embedded_H must be
>>>>>>> measured relative to the pathological relationship or it is not
>>>>>>> measuring the actual behavior of the actual input.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, the behavior measured must be the DEFINED behavior, which IS
>>>>>> the behavior of the ACTUAL MACHINE.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That Halts, so H gets the wrong answer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I know that this is totally obvious thus I had to conclude that
>>>>>>> anyone
>>>>>>> denying it must be a liar that is only playing head games for
>>>>>>> sadistic
>>>>>>> pleasure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, the fact that you think what you say shows that you are a
>>>>>> TOTAL IDIOT.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I did not take into account the power of group think that got at
>>>>>>> least
>>>>>>> 100 million Americans to believe the election fraud changed the
>>>>>>> outcome
>>>>>>> of the 2020 election even though there is zero evidence of this
>>>>>>> anywhere. Even a huge cash prize offered by the Lt. governor of
>>>>>>> Texas
>>>>>>> only turned up one Republican that cheated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, you just don't understand the truth. You are ready for the
>>>>>> truth, because it shows that you have been wrong, and you fragile
>>>>>> ego can't handle that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Only during the 2022 election did it look like this was starting
>>>>>>> to turn
>>>>>>> around a little bit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have been wrong a lot longer than that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The problem is that you SHD is NOT a UTM, and thus the fact that
>>>>>>>> it aborts its simulation and returns an answer changes the
>>>>>>>> behavior of the machine that USED it (compared to a UTM), and
>>>>>>>> thus to be "correct", the SHD needs to take that into account.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I used to think that you were simply lying to play head games,
>>>>>>>>> I no
>>>>>>>>> longer believe this. Now I believe that you are ensnared by
>>>>>>>>> group-think.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope, YOU are the one ensnared in your own fantasy world of lies.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Group-think is the way that 40% of the electorate could
>>>>>>>>> honestly believe
>>>>>>>>> that significant voter fraud changed the outcome of the 2020
>>>>>>>>> election
>>>>>>>>> even though there has very persistently been zero evidence of
>>>>>>>>> this.
>>>>>>>>> https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/groupthink
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And you fantasy world is why you think that a Halt Decider,
>>>>>>>> which is DEFINIED that H(D,D) needs to return the answer
>>>>>>>> "Halting" if D(D) Halts, is correct to give the answer
>>>>>>>> non-halting even though D(D) Ha;ts.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You are just beliving your own lies.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hopefully they will not believe that Fox news paid $787 million
>>>>>>>>> to trick
>>>>>>>>> people into believing that there was no voter fraud.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, they are paying $787 million BECAUSE they tried to gain
>>>>>>>> views by telling them the lies they wanted to hear.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, but even now 30% of the electorate may still believe the lies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, you seem to beleive in 100% of your lies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, there is a portion of the population that fails to see what
>>>>>> is true, because, like you, they think their own ideas are more
>>>>>> important that what actually is true. As was philosophized, they
>>>>>> ignore the truth, but listen to what their itching ears what to
>>>>>> hear. That fits you to the T, as you won't see the errors that are
>>>>>> pointed out to you, and you make up more lies to try to hide your
>>>>>> errors.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> At least they KNEW they were lying, but didn't care, and had to
>>>>>>>> pay the price.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You don't seem to understand that you are lying just as bad as
>>>>>>>> they were.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am absolutely not lying Truth is the most important thing to me
>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>> much more important than love.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> THen why to you lie so much, or are you just that stupid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is clear you just don't know what you are talking about and are
>>>>>> just making stuff up.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It seems you have lied so much that you have convinced yourself of
>>>>>> your lies, and can no longer bear to let the truth in, so you just
>>>>>> deny anything that goes against your lies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have killed your own mind.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All of this work is aimed at formalizing the notion of truth
>>>>>>> because the
>>>>>>> HP, LP, IT and Tarski's Undefinability theorem are all instances
>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>> same Olcott(2004) pathological self-reference error.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, maybe you need to realize that Truth has to match what is
>>>>>> actually true, and you need to work with the definitions that
>>>>>> exist, not the alternate ideas you make up.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A Halt Decider is DEFINED that
>>>>>>
>>>>>> H(M,w) needs to answer about the behavior of M(w).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You don't see to understand that, and it seems to even be a blind
>>>>>> spot, as you like dropping that part when you quote what H is
>>>>>> supposed to do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You seem to see "see" self-references where there are not actual
>>>>>> self-references, but the effect of the "self-reference" is built
>>>>>> from simpler components. It seems you don't even understand what a
>>>>>> "Self-Reference" actually is, maybe even what a "reference"
>>>>>> actually is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For the halt decider, P is built on a COPY of the claimed decider
>>>>>> and given a representation of that resultand machine. Not a single
>>>>>> reference in sight.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Maybe they will believe that tiny space aliens living in the
>>>>>>>>> heads of
>>>>>>>>> Fox leadership took control of their brains and forced them to
>>>>>>>>> pay.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The actual behavior of the actual input is correctly determined
>>>>>>>>> by an
>>>>>>>>> embedded UTM that has been adapted to watch the behavior of its
>>>>>>>>> simulation of its input and match any non-halting behavior
>>>>>>>>> patterns.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But embedded_H isn't "embedded_UTM", so you are just living a lie.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> embedded_H is embedded_UTM for the first N steps even when these
>>>>>>> N steps
>>>>>>> include 10,000 recursive simulations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope. Just your LIES. You clearly don't understand what a UTM is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> After 10,000 recursive simulations even an idiot can infer that more
>>>>>>> will not cause ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by embedded_H to reach its own final
>>>>>>> state
>>>>>>> of ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩ in any finite number of steps.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The fact that if embedded_H does 10,000 recursive simulations and
>>>>>> aborts means that H^ will halt after 10,001.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your propblem is you logic only works if you can find an N that is
>>>>>> bigger than N+1
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You and I both know that mathematical induction proves this in
>>>>>>> far less
>>>>>>> than 10,000 recursive simulations. Why you deny it when you
>>>>>>> should know
>>>>>>> this is true is beyond me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, you are just proving that you don't even know what
>>>>>> mathematical induction means.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are just too stupid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are just proving you are a liar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You know that a halt decider must compute the mapping from its actual
>>>>> input based on the actual specified behavior of this input and then
>>>>> contradict yourself insisting that the actual behavior of this actual
>>>>> input is the wrong behavior to measure.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Right, and the "ACtual Specified Behavior" of the input is DEFINED
>>>> to be the ACTUAL BEHAVIOR of the machine that input represents,
>>>
>>> *When you say that P must be ~P instead of P we know that you are wacky*
>>
>> What ~P
>>
>>>
>>> The actual behavior of ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated by embedded_H is
>>> necessarily the behavior of the first N steps of ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated
>>> by embedded_H. From these N steps we can prove by mathematical induction
>>> that ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated by embedded_H cannot possibly reach it own
>>> final state of ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩ in any finite number of steps.
>>
>> But we don't care about the "First N steps of (Ĥ) correctly
>> simulated", we care about the behavior of the actual machine Ĥ (Ĥ) or
>> the actual FULL correct simulation of UTM (Ĥ) (Ĥ) [ie the input to H]
>
> The actual behavior of the input is the behavior of N steps correctly
> simulated by embedded_H because embedded_H remains a UTM until it aborts
> its simulation.
>

On 4/21/2023 9:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 4/21/23 10:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/21/2023 8:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 4/21/23 8:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/21/2023 6:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 4/21/23 7:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/21/2023 5:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/21/23 11:35 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/21/2023 6:18 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So, you don't understand the nature of simulation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that the following
>>>>>>>> verbatim paragraph is correct:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> a) If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>>>>>>>> until H
>>>>>>>> correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running
>>>>>>>> unless aborted then
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (b) H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>>>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thus it is established that:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The behavior of D correctly simulated by H
>>>>>>>> is the correct behavior to measure.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *IF* H correctly simulates per the definition of a UTM
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It doesn't, so it isn't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The behavior of ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated by embedded_H
>>>>>>>> is the correct behavior to measure.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since the simulation done by embedded_H does not meet the
>>>>>>> definition of "correct simulation" that Professer Sipser uses,
>>>>>>> your arguement is VOID.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are just PROVING your stupidity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Always with the strawman error.
>>>>>> I am saying that when ⟨Ĥ⟩ is correctly simulated by embedded_H it
>>>>>> cannot
>>>>>> possibly reach its own simulated final state of ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩ in any finite
>>>>>> number of steps because Ĥ is defined to have a pathological
>>>>>> relationship
>>>>>> to embedded_H.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since H never "Correctly Simulates" the input per the definition
>>>>> that allows using a simulation instead of the actual machines
>>>>> behavior, YOUR method is the STRAWMAN.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When we examine the behavior of ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by a pure UTM or even
>>>>>> another simulating halt decider such as embedded_H1 having no such
>>>>>> pathological relationship as the basis of the actual behavior of the
>>>>>> input to embedded_H we are comparing apples to lemons and
>>>>>> rejecting the
>>>>>> apples because lemons are too sour.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe, but the question is asking for the lemons that the pure
>>>>> simulator gives, not the apples that you H gives.
>>>>>
>>>>> H is just doing the wrong thing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your failure to see that just shows how blind you are to the actual
>>>>> truth of the system.
>>>>>
>>>>> H MUST answer about the behavior of the actual machine to be a Halt
>>>>> Decider, since that is what the mapping a Halt Decider is supposed
>>>>> to answer is based on.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When a simulating halt decider or even a plain UTM examines the
>>>> behavior
>>>> of its input and the SHD or UTM has a pathological relationship to its
>>>> input then when another SHD or UTM not having a pathological
>>>> relationship to this input is an incorrect proxy for the actual
>>>> behavior
>>>> of this actual input to the original SHD or UTM.
>>>
>>> Nope. If an input has your "pathological" relationship to a UTM, then
>>> YES, the UTM will generate an infinite behavior, but so does the
>>> machine itself, and ANY UTM will see that same infinite behavior.
>>>
>>
>> The point is that that behavior of the input to embedded_H must be
>> measured relative to the pathological relationship or it is not
>> measuring the actual behavior of the actual input.
>
>
> No, the behavior measured must be the DEFINED behavior, which IS the
> behavior of the ACTUAL MACHINE.
>
> That Halts, so H gets the wrong answer.
>
>>
>> I know that this is totally obvious thus I had to conclude that anyone
>> denying it must be a liar that is only playing head games for sadistic
>> pleasure.
>
> No, the fact that you think what you say shows that you are a TOTAL IDIOT.
>
>
>
>>
>> I did not take into account the power of group think that got at least
>> 100 million Americans to believe the election fraud changed the outcome
>> of the 2020 election even though there is zero evidence of this
>> anywhere. Even a huge cash prize offered by the Lt. governor of Texas
>> only turned up one Republican that cheated.
>
> Nope, you just don't understand the truth. You are ready for the truth,
> because it shows that you have been wrong, and you fragile ego can't
> handle that.
>
>>
>> Only during the 2022 election did it look like this was starting to turn
>> around a little bit.
>
> You have been wrong a lot longer than that.
>
>
>>
>>> The problem is that you SHD is NOT a UTM, and thus the fact that it
>>> aborts its simulation and returns an answer changes the behavior of
>>> the machine that USED it (compared to a UTM), and thus to be
>>> "correct", the SHD needs to take that into account.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I used to think that you were simply lying to play head games, I no
>>>> longer believe this. Now I believe that you are ensnared by
>>>> group-think.
>>>
>>>
>>> Nope, YOU are the one ensnared in your own fantasy world of lies.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Group-think is the way that 40% of the electorate could honestly
>>>> believe
>>>> that significant voter fraud changed the outcome of the 2020 election
>>>> even though there has very persistently been zero evidence of this.
>>>> https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/groupthink
>>>
>>> And you fantasy world is why you think that a Halt Decider, which is
>>> DEFINIED that H(D,D) needs to return the answer "Halting" if D(D)
>>> Halts, is correct to give the answer non-halting even though D(D) Ha;ts.
>>>
>>> You are just beliving your own lies.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hopefully they will not believe that Fox news paid $787 million to
>>>> trick
>>>> people into believing that there was no voter fraud.
>>>
>>> No, they are paying $787 million BECAUSE they tried to gain views by
>>> telling them the lies they wanted to hear.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, but even now 30% of the electorate may still believe the lies.
>
> So, you seem to beleive in 100% of your lies.
>
> Yes, there is a portion of the population that fails to see what is
> true, because, like you, they think their own ideas are more important
> that what actually is true. As was philosophized, they ignore the truth,
> but listen to what their itching ears what to hear. That fits you to the
> T, as you won't see the errors that are pointed out to you, and you make
> up more lies to try to hide your errors.
>
>>
>>> At least they KNEW they were lying, but didn't care, and had to pay
>>> the price.
>>>
>>> You don't seem to understand that you are lying just as bad as they
>>> were.
>>>
>>
>> I am absolutely not lying Truth is the most important thing to me even
>> much more important than love.
>
> THen why to you lie so much, or are you just that stupid.
>
> It is clear you just don't know what you are talking about and are just
> making stuff up.
>
> It seems you have lied so much that you have convinced yourself of your
> lies, and can no longer bear to let the truth in, so you just deny
> anything that goes against your lies.
>
> You have killed your own mind.
>
>
>>
>> All of this work is aimed at formalizing the notion of truth because the
>> HP, LP, IT and Tarski's Undefinability theorem are all instances of the
>> same Olcott(2004) pathological self-reference error.
>>
>
> So, maybe you need to realize that Truth has to match what is actually
> true, and you need to work with the definitions that exist, not the
> alternate ideas you make up.
>
> A Halt Decider is DEFINED that
>
> H(M,w) needs to answer about the behavior of M(w).
>
> You don't see to understand that, and it seems to even be a blind spot,
> as you like dropping that part when you quote what H is supposed to do.
>
> You seem to see "see" self-references where there are not actual
> self-references, but the effect of the "self-reference" is built from
> simpler components. It seems you don't even understand what a
> "Self-Reference" actually is, maybe even what a "reference" actually is.
>
> For the halt decider, P is built on a COPY of the claimed decider and
> given a representation of that resultand machine. Not a single reference
> in sight.
>
>
>>>>
>>>> Maybe they will believe that tiny space aliens living in the heads of
>>>> Fox leadership took control of their brains and forced them to pay.
>>>>
>>>> The actual behavior of the actual input is correctly determined by an
>>>> embedded UTM that has been adapted to watch the behavior of its
>>>> simulation of its input and match any non-halting behavior patterns.
>>>>
>>>
>>> But embedded_H isn't "embedded_UTM", so you are just living a lie.
>>>
>>
>> embedded_H is embedded_UTM for the first N steps even when these N steps
>> include 10,000 recursive simulations.
>
> Nope. Just your LIES. You clearly don't understand what a UTM is.
>
>>
>> After 10,000 recursive simulations even an idiot can infer that more
>> will not cause ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by embedded_H to reach its own final state
>> of ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩ in any finite number of steps.
>
> The fact that if embedded_H does 10,000 recursive simulations and aborts
> means that H^ will halt after 10,001.
>
> Your propblem is you logic only works if you can find an N that is
> bigger than N+1
>
>>
>> You and I both know that mathematical induction proves this in far less
>> than 10,000 recursive simulations. Why you deny it when you should know
>> this is true is beyond me.
>
> Nope, you are just proving that you don't even know what mathematical
> induction means.
>
> You are just too stupid.
>
> You are just proving you are a liar.
>

On 4/24/23 10:36 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/21/2023 9:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 4/21/23 10:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/21/2023 8:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 4/21/23 8:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/21/2023 6:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/21/23 7:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/21/2023 5:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/21/23 11:35 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/21/2023 6:18 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So, you don't understand the nature of simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that the following
>>>>>>>>> verbatim paragraph is correct:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> a) If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>>>>>>>>> until H
>>>>>>>>> correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running
>>>>>>>>> unless aborted then
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (b) H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>>>>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thus it is established that:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The behavior of D correctly simulated by H
>>>>>>>>> is the correct behavior to measure.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *IF* H correctly simulates per the definition of a UTM
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It doesn't, so it isn't.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The behavior of ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated by embedded_H
>>>>>>>>> is the correct behavior to measure.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since the simulation done by embedded_H does not meet the
>>>>>>>> definition of "correct simulation" that Professer Sipser uses,
>>>>>>>> your arguement is VOID.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You are just PROVING your stupidity.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Always with the strawman error.
>>>>>>> I am saying that when ⟨Ĥ⟩ is correctly simulated by embedded_H it
>>>>>>> cannot
>>>>>>> possibly reach its own simulated final state of ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩ in any finite
>>>>>>> number of steps because Ĥ is defined to have a pathological
>>>>>>> relationship
>>>>>>> to embedded_H.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since H never "Correctly Simulates" the input per the definition
>>>>>> that allows using a simulation instead of the actual machines
>>>>>> behavior, YOUR method is the STRAWMAN.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When we examine the behavior of ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by a pure UTM or even
>>>>>>> another simulating halt decider such as embedded_H1 having no such
>>>>>>> pathological relationship as the basis of the actual behavior of the
>>>>>>> input to embedded_H we are comparing apples to lemons and
>>>>>>> rejecting the
>>>>>>> apples because lemons are too sour.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe, but the question is asking for the lemons that the pure
>>>>>> simulator gives, not the apples that you H gives.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> H is just doing the wrong thing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your failure to see that just shows how blind you are to the
>>>>>> actual truth of the system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> H MUST answer about the behavior of the actual machine to be a
>>>>>> Halt Decider, since that is what the mapping a Halt Decider is
>>>>>> supposed to answer is based on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When a simulating halt decider or even a plain UTM examines the
>>>>> behavior
>>>>> of its input and the SHD or UTM has a pathological relationship to its
>>>>> input then when another SHD or UTM not having a pathological
>>>>> relationship to this input is an incorrect proxy for the actual
>>>>> behavior
>>>>> of this actual input to the original SHD or UTM.
>>>>
>>>> Nope. If an input has your "pathological" relationship to a UTM,
>>>> then YES, the UTM will generate an infinite behavior, but so does
>>>> the machine itself, and ANY UTM will see that same infinite behavior.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The point is that that behavior of the input to embedded_H must be
>>> measured relative to the pathological relationship or it is not
>>> measuring the actual behavior of the actual input.
>>
>>
>> No, the behavior measured must be the DEFINED behavior, which IS the
>> behavior of the ACTUAL MACHINE.
>>
>> That Halts, so H gets the wrong answer.
>>
>>>
>>> I know that this is totally obvious thus I had to conclude that anyone
>>> denying it must be a liar that is only playing head games for sadistic
>>> pleasure.
>>
>> No, the fact that you think what you say shows that you are a TOTAL
>> IDIOT.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I did not take into account the power of group think that got at least
>>> 100 million Americans to believe the election fraud changed the outcome
>>> of the 2020 election even though there is zero evidence of this
>>> anywhere. Even a huge cash prize offered by the Lt. governor of Texas
>>> only turned up one Republican that cheated.
>>
>> Nope, you just don't understand the truth. You are ready for the
>> truth, because it shows that you have been wrong, and you fragile ego
>> can't handle that.
>>
>>>
>>> Only during the 2022 election did it look like this was starting to turn
>>> around a little bit.
>>
>> You have been wrong a lot longer than that.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> The problem is that you SHD is NOT a UTM, and thus the fact that it
>>>> aborts its simulation and returns an answer changes the behavior of
>>>> the machine that USED it (compared to a UTM), and thus to be
>>>> "correct", the SHD needs to take that into account.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I used to think that you were simply lying to play head games, I no
>>>>> longer believe this. Now I believe that you are ensnared by
>>>>> group-think.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nope, YOU are the one ensnared in your own fantasy world of lies.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Group-think is the way that 40% of the electorate could honestly
>>>>> believe
>>>>> that significant voter fraud changed the outcome of the 2020 election
>>>>> even though there has very persistently been zero evidence of this.
>>>>> https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/groupthink
>>>>
>>>> And you fantasy world is why you think that a Halt Decider, which is
>>>> DEFINIED that H(D,D) needs to return the answer "Halting" if D(D)
>>>> Halts, is correct to give the answer non-halting even though D(D)
>>>> Ha;ts.
>>>>
>>>> You are just beliving your own lies.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hopefully they will not believe that Fox news paid $787 million to
>>>>> trick
>>>>> people into believing that there was no voter fraud.
>>>>
>>>> No, they are paying $787 million BECAUSE they tried to gain views by
>>>> telling them the lies they wanted to hear.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, but even now 30% of the electorate may still believe the lies.
>>
>> So, you seem to beleive in 100% of your lies.
>>
>> Yes, there is a portion of the population that fails to see what is
>> true, because, like you, they think their own ideas are more important
>> that what actually is true. As was philosophized, they ignore the
>> truth, but listen to what their itching ears what to hear. That fits
>> you to the T, as you won't see the errors that are pointed out to you,
>> and you make up more lies to try to hide your errors.
>>
>>>
>>>> At least they KNEW they were lying, but didn't care, and had to pay
>>>> the price.
>>>>
>>>> You don't seem to understand that you are lying just as bad as they
>>>> were.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I am absolutely not lying Truth is the most important thing to me even
>>> much more important than love.
>>
>> THen why to you lie so much, or are you just that stupid.
>>
>> It is clear you just don't know what you are talking about and are
>> just making stuff up.
>>
>> It seems you have lied so much that you have convinced yourself of
>> your lies, and can no longer bear to let the truth in, so you just
>> deny anything that goes against your lies.
>>
>> You have killed your own mind.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> All of this work is aimed at formalizing the notion of truth because the
>>> HP, LP, IT and Tarski's Undefinability theorem are all instances of the
>>> same Olcott(2004) pathological self-reference error.
>>>
>>
>> So, maybe you need to realize that Truth has to match what is actually
>> true, and you need to work with the definitions that exist, not the
>> alternate ideas you make up.
>>
>> A Halt Decider is DEFINED that
>>
>> H(M,w) needs to answer about the behavior of M(w).
>>
>> You don't see to understand that, and it seems to even be a blind
>> spot, as you like dropping that part when you quote what H is supposed
>> to do.
>>
>> You seem to see "see" self-references where there are not actual
>> self-references, but the effect of the "self-reference" is built from
>> simpler components. It seems you don't even understand what a
>> "Self-Reference" actually is, maybe even what a "reference" actually is.
>>
>> For the halt decider, P is built on a COPY of the claimed decider and
>> given a representation of that resultand machine. Not a single
>> reference in sight.
>>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe they will believe that tiny space aliens living in the heads of
>>>>> Fox leadership took control of their brains and forced them to pay.
>>>>>
>>>>> The actual behavior of the actual input is correctly determined by an
>>>>> embedded UTM that has been adapted to watch the behavior of its
>>>>> simulation of its input and match any non-halting behavior patterns.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But embedded_H isn't "embedded_UTM", so you are just living a lie.
>>>>
>>>
>>> embedded_H is embedded_UTM for the first N steps even when these N steps
>>> include 10,000 recursive simulations.
>>
>> Nope. Just your LIES. You clearly don't understand what a UTM is.
>>
>>>
>>> After 10,000 recursive simulations even an idiot can infer that more
>>> will not cause ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by embedded_H to reach its own final state
>>> of ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩ in any finite number of steps.
>>
>> The fact that if embedded_H does 10,000 recursive simulations and
>> aborts means that H^ will halt after 10,001.
>>
>> Your propblem is you logic only works if you can find an N that is
>> bigger than N+1
>>
>>>
>>> You and I both know that mathematical induction proves this in far less
>>> than 10,000 recursive simulations. Why you deny it when you should know
>>> this is true is beyond me.
>>
>> Nope, you are just proving that you don't even know what mathematical
>> induction means.
>>
>> You are just too stupid.
>>
>> You are just proving you are a liar.
>>
>
> You know that a halt decider must compute the mapping from its actual
> input based on the actual specified behavior of this input and then
> contradict yourself insisting that the actual behavior of this actual
> input is the wrong behavior to measure.
>
>

On 4/24/2023 6:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 4/24/23 10:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/21/2023 9:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 4/21/23 10:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/21/2023 8:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 4/21/23 8:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/21/2023 6:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/21/23 7:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/21/2023 5:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/21/23 11:35 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/21/2023 6:18 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So, you don't understand the nature of simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that the following
>>>>>>>>>> verbatim paragraph is correct:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> a) If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input
>>>>>>>>>> D until H
>>>>>>>>>> correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop
>>>>>>>>>> running
>>>>>>>>>> unless aborted then
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (b) H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>>>>>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thus it is established that:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The behavior of D correctly simulated by H
>>>>>>>>>> is the correct behavior to measure.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *IF* H correctly simulates per the definition of a UTM
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It doesn't, so it isn't.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The behavior of ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated by embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>> is the correct behavior to measure.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Since the simulation done by embedded_H does not meet the
>>>>>>>>> definition of "correct simulation" that Professer Sipser uses,
>>>>>>>>> your arguement is VOID.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You are just PROVING your stupidity.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Always with the strawman error.
>>>>>>>> I am saying that when ⟨Ĥ⟩ is correctly simulated by embedded_H
>>>>>>>> it cannot
>>>>>>>> possibly reach its own simulated final state of ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩ in any
>>>>>>>> finite
>>>>>>>> number of steps because Ĥ is defined to have a pathological
>>>>>>>> relationship
>>>>>>>> to embedded_H.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since H never "Correctly Simulates" the input per the definition
>>>>>>> that allows using a simulation instead of the actual machines
>>>>>>> behavior, YOUR method is the STRAWMAN.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When we examine the behavior of ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by a pure UTM or even
>>>>>>>> another simulating halt decider such as embedded_H1 having no such
>>>>>>>> pathological relationship as the basis of the actual behavior of
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> input to embedded_H we are comparing apples to lemons and
>>>>>>>> rejecting the
>>>>>>>> apples because lemons are too sour.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe, but the question is asking for the lemons that the pure
>>>>>>> simulator gives, not the apples that you H gives.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> H is just doing the wrong thing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your failure to see that just shows how blind you are to the
>>>>>>> actual truth of the system.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> H MUST answer about the behavior of the actual machine to be a
>>>>>>> Halt Decider, since that is what the mapping a Halt Decider is
>>>>>>> supposed to answer is based on.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When a simulating halt decider or even a plain UTM examines the
>>>>>> behavior
>>>>>> of its input and the SHD or UTM has a pathological relationship to
>>>>>> its
>>>>>> input then when another SHD or UTM not having a pathological
>>>>>> relationship to this input is an incorrect proxy for the actual
>>>>>> behavior
>>>>>> of this actual input to the original SHD or UTM.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope. If an input has your "pathological" relationship to a UTM,
>>>>> then YES, the UTM will generate an infinite behavior, but so does
>>>>> the machine itself, and ANY UTM will see that same infinite behavior.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The point is that that behavior of the input to embedded_H must be
>>>> measured relative to the pathological relationship or it is not
>>>> measuring the actual behavior of the actual input.
>>>
>>>
>>> No, the behavior measured must be the DEFINED behavior, which IS the
>>> behavior of the ACTUAL MACHINE.
>>>
>>> That Halts, so H gets the wrong answer.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I know that this is totally obvious thus I had to conclude that anyone
>>>> denying it must be a liar that is only playing head games for sadistic
>>>> pleasure.
>>>
>>> No, the fact that you think what you say shows that you are a TOTAL
>>> IDIOT.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I did not take into account the power of group think that got at least
>>>> 100 million Americans to believe the election fraud changed the outcome
>>>> of the 2020 election even though there is zero evidence of this
>>>> anywhere. Even a huge cash prize offered by the Lt. governor of Texas
>>>> only turned up one Republican that cheated.
>>>
>>> Nope, you just don't understand the truth. You are ready for the
>>> truth, because it shows that you have been wrong, and you fragile ego
>>> can't handle that.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Only during the 2022 election did it look like this was starting to
>>>> turn
>>>> around a little bit.
>>>
>>> You have been wrong a lot longer than that.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The problem is that you SHD is NOT a UTM, and thus the fact that it
>>>>> aborts its simulation and returns an answer changes the behavior of
>>>>> the machine that USED it (compared to a UTM), and thus to be
>>>>> "correct", the SHD needs to take that into account.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I used to think that you were simply lying to play head games, I no
>>>>>> longer believe this. Now I believe that you are ensnared by
>>>>>> group-think.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, YOU are the one ensnared in your own fantasy world of lies.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Group-think is the way that 40% of the electorate could honestly
>>>>>> believe
>>>>>> that significant voter fraud changed the outcome of the 2020 election
>>>>>> even though there has very persistently been zero evidence of this.
>>>>>> https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/groupthink
>>>>>
>>>>> And you fantasy world is why you think that a Halt Decider, which
>>>>> is DEFINIED that H(D,D) needs to return the answer "Halting" if
>>>>> D(D) Halts, is correct to give the answer non-halting even though
>>>>> D(D) Ha;ts.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are just beliving your own lies.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hopefully they will not believe that Fox news paid $787 million to
>>>>>> trick
>>>>>> people into believing that there was no voter fraud.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, they are paying $787 million BECAUSE they tried to gain views
>>>>> by telling them the lies they wanted to hear.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, but even now 30% of the electorate may still believe the lies.
>>>
>>> So, you seem to beleive in 100% of your lies.
>>>
>>> Yes, there is a portion of the population that fails to see what is
>>> true, because, like you, they think their own ideas are more
>>> important that what actually is true. As was philosophized, they
>>> ignore the truth, but listen to what their itching ears what to hear.
>>> That fits you to the T, as you won't see the errors that are pointed
>>> out to you, and you make up more lies to try to hide your errors.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> At least they KNEW they were lying, but didn't care, and had to pay
>>>>> the price.
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't seem to understand that you are lying just as bad as they
>>>>> were.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am absolutely not lying Truth is the most important thing to me even
>>>> much more important than love.
>>>
>>> THen why to you lie so much, or are you just that stupid.
>>>
>>> It is clear you just don't know what you are talking about and are
>>> just making stuff up.
>>>
>>> It seems you have lied so much that you have convinced yourself of
>>> your lies, and can no longer bear to let the truth in, so you just
>>> deny anything that goes against your lies.
>>>
>>> You have killed your own mind.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> All of this work is aimed at formalizing the notion of truth because
>>>> the
>>>> HP, LP, IT and Tarski's Undefinability theorem are all instances of the
>>>> same Olcott(2004) pathological self-reference error.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So, maybe you need to realize that Truth has to match what is
>>> actually true, and you need to work with the definitions that exist,
>>> not the alternate ideas you make up.
>>>
>>> A Halt Decider is DEFINED that
>>>
>>> H(M,w) needs to answer about the behavior of M(w).
>>>
>>> You don't see to understand that, and it seems to even be a blind
>>> spot, as you like dropping that part when you quote what H is
>>> supposed to do.
>>>
>>> You seem to see "see" self-references where there are not actual
>>> self-references, but the effect of the "self-reference" is built from
>>> simpler components. It seems you don't even understand what a
>>> "Self-Reference" actually is, maybe even what a "reference" actually is.
>>>
>>> For the halt decider, P is built on a COPY of the claimed decider and
>>> given a representation of that resultand machine. Not a single
>>> reference in sight.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe they will believe that tiny space aliens living in the heads of
>>>>>> Fox leadership took control of their brains and forced them to pay.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The actual behavior of the actual input is correctly determined by an
>>>>>> embedded UTM that has been adapted to watch the behavior of its
>>>>>> simulation of its input and match any non-halting behavior patterns.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But embedded_H isn't "embedded_UTM", so you are just living a lie.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> embedded_H is embedded_UTM for the first N steps even when these N
>>>> steps
>>>> include 10,000 recursive simulations.
>>>
>>> Nope. Just your LIES. You clearly don't understand what a UTM is.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> After 10,000 recursive simulations even an idiot can infer that more
>>>> will not cause ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by embedded_H to reach its own final state
>>>> of ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩ in any finite number of steps.
>>>
>>> The fact that if embedded_H does 10,000 recursive simulations and
>>> aborts means that H^ will halt after 10,001.
>>>
>>> Your propblem is you logic only works if you can find an N that is
>>> bigger than N+1
>>>
>>>>
>>>> You and I both know that mathematical induction proves this in far less
>>>> than 10,000 recursive simulations. Why you deny it when you should know
>>>> this is true is beyond me.
>>>
>>> Nope, you are just proving that you don't even know what mathematical
>>> induction means.
>>>
>>> You are just too stupid.
>>>
>>> You are just proving you are a liar.
>>>
>>
>> You know that a halt decider must compute the mapping from its actual
>> input based on the actual specified behavior of this input and then
>> contradict yourself insisting that the actual behavior of this actual
>> input is the wrong behavior to measure.
>>
>>
>
> Right, and the "ACtual Specified Behavior" of the input is DEFINED to be
> the ACTUAL BEHAVIOR of the machine that input represents,

On 4/25/23 12:29 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/24/2023 6:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 4/24/23 10:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/21/2023 9:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 4/21/23 10:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/21/2023 8:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/21/23 8:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/21/2023 6:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/21/23 7:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/21/2023 5:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/21/23 11:35 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/21/2023 6:18 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So, you don't understand the nature of simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that the following
>>>>>>>>>>> verbatim paragraph is correct:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> a) If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input
>>>>>>>>>>> D until H
>>>>>>>>>>> correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop
>>>>>>>>>>> running
>>>>>>>>>>> unless aborted then
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> (b) H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>>>>>>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thus it is established that:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The behavior of D correctly simulated by H
>>>>>>>>>>> is the correct behavior to measure.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *IF* H correctly simulates per the definition of a UTM
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It doesn't, so it isn't.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The behavior of ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated by embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>> is the correct behavior to measure.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Since the simulation done by embedded_H does not meet the
>>>>>>>>>> definition of "correct simulation" that Professer Sipser uses,
>>>>>>>>>> your arguement is VOID.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You are just PROVING your stupidity.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Always with the strawman error.
>>>>>>>>> I am saying that when ⟨Ĥ⟩ is correctly simulated by embedded_H
>>>>>>>>> it cannot
>>>>>>>>> possibly reach its own simulated final state of ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩ in any
>>>>>>>>> finite
>>>>>>>>> number of steps because Ĥ is defined to have a pathological
>>>>>>>>> relationship
>>>>>>>>> to embedded_H.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since H never "Correctly Simulates" the input per the definition
>>>>>>>> that allows using a simulation instead of the actual machines
>>>>>>>> behavior, YOUR method is the STRAWMAN.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When we examine the behavior of ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by a pure UTM or
>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>> another simulating halt decider such as embedded_H1 having no such
>>>>>>>>> pathological relationship as the basis of the actual behavior
>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>> input to embedded_H we are comparing apples to lemons and
>>>>>>>>> rejecting the
>>>>>>>>> apples because lemons are too sour.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe, but the question is asking for the lemons that the pure
>>>>>>>> simulator gives, not the apples that you H gives.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> H is just doing the wrong thing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Your failure to see that just shows how blind you are to the
>>>>>>>> actual truth of the system.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> H MUST answer about the behavior of the actual machine to be a
>>>>>>>> Halt Decider, since that is what the mapping a Halt Decider is
>>>>>>>> supposed to answer is based on.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When a simulating halt decider or even a plain UTM examines the
>>>>>>> behavior
>>>>>>> of its input and the SHD or UTM has a pathological relationship
>>>>>>> to its
>>>>>>> input then when another SHD or UTM not having a pathological
>>>>>>> relationship to this input is an incorrect proxy for the actual
>>>>>>> behavior
>>>>>>> of this actual input to the original SHD or UTM.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope. If an input has your "pathological" relationship to a UTM,
>>>>>> then YES, the UTM will generate an infinite behavior, but so does
>>>>>> the machine itself, and ANY UTM will see that same infinite behavior.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The point is that that behavior of the input to embedded_H must be
>>>>> measured relative to the pathological relationship or it is not
>>>>> measuring the actual behavior of the actual input.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, the behavior measured must be the DEFINED behavior, which IS the
>>>> behavior of the ACTUAL MACHINE.
>>>>
>>>> That Halts, so H gets the wrong answer.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I know that this is totally obvious thus I had to conclude that anyone
>>>>> denying it must be a liar that is only playing head games for sadistic
>>>>> pleasure.
>>>>
>>>> No, the fact that you think what you say shows that you are a TOTAL
>>>> IDIOT.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I did not take into account the power of group think that got at least
>>>>> 100 million Americans to believe the election fraud changed the
>>>>> outcome
>>>>> of the 2020 election even though there is zero evidence of this
>>>>> anywhere. Even a huge cash prize offered by the Lt. governor of Texas
>>>>> only turned up one Republican that cheated.
>>>>
>>>> Nope, you just don't understand the truth. You are ready for the
>>>> truth, because it shows that you have been wrong, and you fragile
>>>> ego can't handle that.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Only during the 2022 election did it look like this was starting to
>>>>> turn
>>>>> around a little bit.
>>>>
>>>> You have been wrong a lot longer than that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem is that you SHD is NOT a UTM, and thus the fact that
>>>>>> it aborts its simulation and returns an answer changes the
>>>>>> behavior of the machine that USED it (compared to a UTM), and thus
>>>>>> to be "correct", the SHD needs to take that into account.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I used to think that you were simply lying to play head games, I no
>>>>>>> longer believe this. Now I believe that you are ensnared by
>>>>>>> group-think.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, YOU are the one ensnared in your own fantasy world of lies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Group-think is the way that 40% of the electorate could honestly
>>>>>>> believe
>>>>>>> that significant voter fraud changed the outcome of the 2020
>>>>>>> election
>>>>>>> even though there has very persistently been zero evidence of this.
>>>>>>> https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/groupthink
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And you fantasy world is why you think that a Halt Decider, which
>>>>>> is DEFINIED that H(D,D) needs to return the answer "Halting" if
>>>>>> D(D) Halts, is correct to give the answer non-halting even though
>>>>>> D(D) Ha;ts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are just beliving your own lies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hopefully they will not believe that Fox news paid $787 million
>>>>>>> to trick
>>>>>>> people into believing that there was no voter fraud.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, they are paying $787 million BECAUSE they tried to gain views
>>>>>> by telling them the lies they wanted to hear.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, but even now 30% of the electorate may still believe the lies.
>>>>
>>>> So, you seem to beleive in 100% of your lies.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, there is a portion of the population that fails to see what is
>>>> true, because, like you, they think their own ideas are more
>>>> important that what actually is true. As was philosophized, they
>>>> ignore the truth, but listen to what their itching ears what to
>>>> hear. That fits you to the T, as you won't see the errors that are
>>>> pointed out to you, and you make up more lies to try to hide your
>>>> errors.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> At least they KNEW they were lying, but didn't care, and had to
>>>>>> pay the price.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You don't seem to understand that you are lying just as bad as
>>>>>> they were.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I am absolutely not lying Truth is the most important thing to me even
>>>>> much more important than love.
>>>>
>>>> THen why to you lie so much, or are you just that stupid.
>>>>
>>>> It is clear you just don't know what you are talking about and are
>>>> just making stuff up.
>>>>
>>>> It seems you have lied so much that you have convinced yourself of
>>>> your lies, and can no longer bear to let the truth in, so you just
>>>> deny anything that goes against your lies.
>>>>
>>>> You have killed your own mind.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> All of this work is aimed at formalizing the notion of truth
>>>>> because the
>>>>> HP, LP, IT and Tarski's Undefinability theorem are all instances of
>>>>> the
>>>>> same Olcott(2004) pathological self-reference error.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, maybe you need to realize that Truth has to match what is
>>>> actually true, and you need to work with the definitions that exist,
>>>> not the alternate ideas you make up.
>>>>
>>>> A Halt Decider is DEFINED that
>>>>
>>>> H(M,w) needs to answer about the behavior of M(w).
>>>>
>>>> You don't see to understand that, and it seems to even be a blind
>>>> spot, as you like dropping that part when you quote what H is
>>>> supposed to do.
>>>>
>>>> You seem to see "see" self-references where there are not actual
>>>> self-references, but the effect of the "self-reference" is built
>>>> from simpler components. It seems you don't even understand what a
>>>> "Self-Reference" actually is, maybe even what a "reference" actually
>>>> is.
>>>>
>>>> For the halt decider, P is built on a COPY of the claimed decider
>>>> and given a representation of that resultand machine. Not a single
>>>> reference in sight.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe they will believe that tiny space aliens living in the
>>>>>>> heads of
>>>>>>> Fox leadership took control of their brains and forced them to pay.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The actual behavior of the actual input is correctly determined
>>>>>>> by an
>>>>>>> embedded UTM that has been adapted to watch the behavior of its
>>>>>>> simulation of its input and match any non-halting behavior patterns.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But embedded_H isn't "embedded_UTM", so you are just living a lie.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> embedded_H is embedded_UTM for the first N steps even when these N
>>>>> steps
>>>>> include 10,000 recursive simulations.
>>>>
>>>> Nope. Just your LIES. You clearly don't understand what a UTM is.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> After 10,000 recursive simulations even an idiot can infer that more
>>>>> will not cause ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by embedded_H to reach its own final
>>>>> state
>>>>> of ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩ in any finite number of steps.
>>>>
>>>> The fact that if embedded_H does 10,000 recursive simulations and
>>>> aborts means that H^ will halt after 10,001.
>>>>
>>>> Your propblem is you logic only works if you can find an N that is
>>>> bigger than N+1
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You and I both know that mathematical induction proves this in far
>>>>> less
>>>>> than 10,000 recursive simulations. Why you deny it when you should
>>>>> know
>>>>> this is true is beyond me.
>>>>
>>>> Nope, you are just proving that you don't even know what
>>>> mathematical induction means.
>>>>
>>>> You are just too stupid.
>>>>
>>>> You are just proving you are a liar.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You know that a halt decider must compute the mapping from its actual
>>> input based on the actual specified behavior of this input and then
>>> contradict yourself insisting that the actual behavior of this actual
>>> input is the wrong behavior to measure.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Right, and the "ACtual Specified Behavior" of the input is DEFINED to
>> be the ACTUAL BEHAVIOR of the machine that input represents,
>
> *When you say that P must be ~P instead of P we know that you are wacky*

On 4/25/2023 6:56 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 4/25/23 12:29 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/24/2023 6:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 4/24/23 10:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/21/2023 9:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 4/21/23 10:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/21/2023 8:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/21/23 8:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/21/2023 6:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/21/23 7:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/21/2023 5:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/21/23 11:35 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/21/2023 6:18 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, you don't understand the nature of simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that the following
>>>>>>>>>>>> verbatim paragraph is correct:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> a) If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
>>>>>>>>>>>> input D until H
>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop
>>>>>>>>>>>> running
>>>>>>>>>>>> unless aborted then
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>>>>>>>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus it is established that:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The behavior of D correctly simulated by H
>>>>>>>>>>>> is the correct behavior to measure.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *IF* H correctly simulates per the definition of a UTM
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It doesn't, so it isn't.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The behavior of ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated by embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>> is the correct behavior to measure.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Since the simulation done by embedded_H does not meet the
>>>>>>>>>>> definition of "correct simulation" that Professer Sipser
>>>>>>>>>>> uses, your arguement is VOID.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You are just PROVING your stupidity.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Always with the strawman error.
>>>>>>>>>> I am saying that when ⟨Ĥ⟩ is correctly simulated by embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>> it cannot
>>>>>>>>>> possibly reach its own simulated final state of ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩ in any
>>>>>>>>>> finite
>>>>>>>>>> number of steps because Ĥ is defined to have a pathological
>>>>>>>>>> relationship
>>>>>>>>>> to embedded_H.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Since H never "Correctly Simulates" the input per the
>>>>>>>>> definition that allows using a simulation instead of the actual
>>>>>>>>> machines behavior, YOUR method is the STRAWMAN.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When we examine the behavior of ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by a pure UTM or
>>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>> another simulating halt decider such as embedded_H1 having no
>>>>>>>>>> such
>>>>>>>>>> pathological relationship as the basis of the actual behavior
>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>> input to embedded_H we are comparing apples to lemons and
>>>>>>>>>> rejecting the
>>>>>>>>>> apples because lemons are too sour.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Maybe, but the question is asking for the lemons that the pure
>>>>>>>>> simulator gives, not the apples that you H gives.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> H is just doing the wrong thing.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Your failure to see that just shows how blind you are to the
>>>>>>>>> actual truth of the system.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> H MUST answer about the behavior of the actual machine to be a
>>>>>>>>> Halt Decider, since that is what the mapping a Halt Decider is
>>>>>>>>> supposed to answer is based on.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When a simulating halt decider or even a plain UTM examines the
>>>>>>>> behavior
>>>>>>>> of its input and the SHD or UTM has a pathological relationship
>>>>>>>> to its
>>>>>>>> input then when another SHD or UTM not having a pathological
>>>>>>>> relationship to this input is an incorrect proxy for the actual
>>>>>>>> behavior
>>>>>>>> of this actual input to the original SHD or UTM.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope. If an input has your "pathological" relationship to a UTM,
>>>>>>> then YES, the UTM will generate an infinite behavior, but so does
>>>>>>> the machine itself, and ANY UTM will see that same infinite
>>>>>>> behavior.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The point is that that behavior of the input to embedded_H must be
>>>>>> measured relative to the pathological relationship or it is not
>>>>>> measuring the actual behavior of the actual input.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, the behavior measured must be the DEFINED behavior, which IS
>>>>> the behavior of the ACTUAL MACHINE.
>>>>>
>>>>> That Halts, so H gets the wrong answer.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I know that this is totally obvious thus I had to conclude that
>>>>>> anyone
>>>>>> denying it must be a liar that is only playing head games for
>>>>>> sadistic
>>>>>> pleasure.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, the fact that you think what you say shows that you are a TOTAL
>>>>> IDIOT.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I did not take into account the power of group think that got at
>>>>>> least
>>>>>> 100 million Americans to believe the election fraud changed the
>>>>>> outcome
>>>>>> of the 2020 election even though there is zero evidence of this
>>>>>> anywhere. Even a huge cash prize offered by the Lt. governor of Texas
>>>>>> only turned up one Republican that cheated.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, you just don't understand the truth. You are ready for the
>>>>> truth, because it shows that you have been wrong, and you fragile
>>>>> ego can't handle that.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Only during the 2022 election did it look like this was starting
>>>>>> to turn
>>>>>> around a little bit.
>>>>>
>>>>> You have been wrong a lot longer than that.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The problem is that you SHD is NOT a UTM, and thus the fact that
>>>>>>> it aborts its simulation and returns an answer changes the
>>>>>>> behavior of the machine that USED it (compared to a UTM), and
>>>>>>> thus to be "correct", the SHD needs to take that into account.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I used to think that you were simply lying to play head games, I no
>>>>>>>> longer believe this. Now I believe that you are ensnared by
>>>>>>>> group-think.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope, YOU are the one ensnared in your own fantasy world of lies.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Group-think is the way that 40% of the electorate could honestly
>>>>>>>> believe
>>>>>>>> that significant voter fraud changed the outcome of the 2020
>>>>>>>> election
>>>>>>>> even though there has very persistently been zero evidence of this.
>>>>>>>> https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/groupthink
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And you fantasy world is why you think that a Halt Decider, which
>>>>>>> is DEFINIED that H(D,D) needs to return the answer "Halting" if
>>>>>>> D(D) Halts, is correct to give the answer non-halting even though
>>>>>>> D(D) Ha;ts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are just beliving your own lies.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hopefully they will not believe that Fox news paid $787 million
>>>>>>>> to trick
>>>>>>>> people into believing that there was no voter fraud.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, they are paying $787 million BECAUSE they tried to gain views
>>>>>>> by telling them the lies they wanted to hear.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, but even now 30% of the electorate may still believe the lies.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, you seem to beleive in 100% of your lies.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, there is a portion of the population that fails to see what is
>>>>> true, because, like you, they think their own ideas are more
>>>>> important that what actually is true. As was philosophized, they
>>>>> ignore the truth, but listen to what their itching ears what to
>>>>> hear. That fits you to the T, as you won't see the errors that are
>>>>> pointed out to you, and you make up more lies to try to hide your
>>>>> errors.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At least they KNEW they were lying, but didn't care, and had to
>>>>>>> pay the price.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You don't seem to understand that you are lying just as bad as
>>>>>>> they were.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am absolutely not lying Truth is the most important thing to me
>>>>>> even
>>>>>> much more important than love.
>>>>>
>>>>> THen why to you lie so much, or are you just that stupid.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is clear you just don't know what you are talking about and are
>>>>> just making stuff up.
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems you have lied so much that you have convinced yourself of
>>>>> your lies, and can no longer bear to let the truth in, so you just
>>>>> deny anything that goes against your lies.
>>>>>
>>>>> You have killed your own mind.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All of this work is aimed at formalizing the notion of truth
>>>>>> because the
>>>>>> HP, LP, IT and Tarski's Undefinability theorem are all instances
>>>>>> of the
>>>>>> same Olcott(2004) pathological self-reference error.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So, maybe you need to realize that Truth has to match what is
>>>>> actually true, and you need to work with the definitions that
>>>>> exist, not the alternate ideas you make up.
>>>>>
>>>>> A Halt Decider is DEFINED that
>>>>>
>>>>> H(M,w) needs to answer about the behavior of M(w).
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't see to understand that, and it seems to even be a blind
>>>>> spot, as you like dropping that part when you quote what H is
>>>>> supposed to do.
>>>>>
>>>>> You seem to see "see" self-references where there are not actual
>>>>> self-references, but the effect of the "self-reference" is built
>>>>> from simpler components. It seems you don't even understand what a
>>>>> "Self-Reference" actually is, maybe even what a "reference"
>>>>> actually is.
>>>>>
>>>>> For the halt decider, P is built on a COPY of the claimed decider
>>>>> and given a representation of that resultand machine. Not a single
>>>>> reference in sight.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe they will believe that tiny space aliens living in the
>>>>>>>> heads of
>>>>>>>> Fox leadership took control of their brains and forced them to pay.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The actual behavior of the actual input is correctly determined
>>>>>>>> by an
>>>>>>>> embedded UTM that has been adapted to watch the behavior of its
>>>>>>>> simulation of its input and match any non-halting behavior
>>>>>>>> patterns.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But embedded_H isn't "embedded_UTM", so you are just living a lie.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> embedded_H is embedded_UTM for the first N steps even when these N
>>>>>> steps
>>>>>> include 10,000 recursive simulations.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope. Just your LIES. You clearly don't understand what a UTM is.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> After 10,000 recursive simulations even an idiot can infer that more
>>>>>> will not cause ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by embedded_H to reach its own final
>>>>>> state
>>>>>> of ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩ in any finite number of steps.
>>>>>
>>>>> The fact that if embedded_H does 10,000 recursive simulations and
>>>>> aborts means that H^ will halt after 10,001.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your propblem is you logic only works if you can find an N that is
>>>>> bigger than N+1
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You and I both know that mathematical induction proves this in far
>>>>>> less
>>>>>> than 10,000 recursive simulations. Why you deny it when you should
>>>>>> know
>>>>>> this is true is beyond me.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, you are just proving that you don't even know what
>>>>> mathematical induction means.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are just too stupid.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are just proving you are a liar.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You know that a halt decider must compute the mapping from its actual
>>>> input based on the actual specified behavior of this input and then
>>>> contradict yourself insisting that the actual behavior of this actual
>>>> input is the wrong behavior to measure.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Right, and the "ACtual Specified Behavior" of the input is DEFINED to
>>> be the ACTUAL BEHAVIOR of the machine that input represents,
>>
>> *When you say that P must be ~P instead of P we know that you are wacky*
>
> What ~P
>
>>
>> The actual behavior of ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated by embedded_H is
>> necessarily the behavior of the first N steps of ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated
>> by embedded_H. From these N steps we can prove by mathematical induction
>> that ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated by embedded_H cannot possibly reach it own
>> final state of ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩ in any finite number of steps.
>
> But we don't care about the "First N steps of (Ĥ) correctly simulated",
> we care about the behavior of the actual machine Ĥ (Ĥ) or the actual
> FULL correct simulation of UTM (Ĥ) (Ĥ) [ie the input to H]

On 4/26/2023 7:07 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 4/25/23 11:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/25/2023 6:56 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 4/25/23 12:29 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/24/2023 6:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 4/24/23 10:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/21/2023 9:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/21/23 10:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/21/2023 8:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/21/23 8:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/21/2023 6:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/21/23 7:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/21/2023 5:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/21/23 11:35 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/21/2023 6:18 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, you don't understand the nature of simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that the following
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> verbatim paragraph is correct:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a) If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input D until H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> running
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unless aborted then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that D
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus it is established that:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The behavior of D correctly simulated by H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the correct behavior to measure.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *IF* H correctly simulates per the definition of a UTM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It doesn't, so it isn't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The behavior of ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated by embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the correct behavior to measure.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since the simulation done by embedded_H does not meet the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition of "correct simulation" that Professer Sipser
>>>>>>>>>>>>> uses, your arguement is VOID.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are just PROVING your stupidity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Always with the strawman error.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I am saying that when ⟨Ĥ⟩ is correctly simulated by
>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H it cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly reach its own simulated final state of ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩ in
>>>>>>>>>>>> any finite
>>>>>>>>>>>> number of steps because Ĥ is defined to have a pathological
>>>>>>>>>>>> relationship
>>>>>>>>>>>> to embedded_H.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Since H never "Correctly Simulates" the input per the
>>>>>>>>>>> definition that allows using a simulation instead of the
>>>>>>>>>>> actual machines behavior, YOUR method is the STRAWMAN.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> When we examine the behavior of ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by a pure UTM
>>>>>>>>>>>> or even
>>>>>>>>>>>> another simulating halt decider such as embedded_H1 having
>>>>>>>>>>>> no such
>>>>>>>>>>>> pathological relationship as the basis of the actual
>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> input to embedded_H we are comparing apples to lemons and
>>>>>>>>>>>> rejecting the
>>>>>>>>>>>> apples because lemons are too sour.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe, but the question is asking for the lemons that the
>>>>>>>>>>> pure simulator gives, not the apples that you H gives.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> H is just doing the wrong thing.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Your failure to see that just shows how blind you are to the
>>>>>>>>>>> actual truth of the system.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> H MUST answer about the behavior of the actual machine to be
>>>>>>>>>>> a Halt Decider, since that is what the mapping a Halt Decider
>>>>>>>>>>> is supposed to answer is based on.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When a simulating halt decider or even a plain UTM examines
>>>>>>>>>> the behavior
>>>>>>>>>> of its input and the SHD or UTM has a pathological
>>>>>>>>>> relationship to its
>>>>>>>>>> input then when another SHD or UTM not having a pathological
>>>>>>>>>> relationship to this input is an incorrect proxy for the
>>>>>>>>>> actual behavior
>>>>>>>>>> of this actual input to the original SHD or UTM.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope. If an input has your "pathological" relationship to a
>>>>>>>>> UTM, then YES, the UTM will generate an infinite behavior, but
>>>>>>>>> so does the machine itself, and ANY UTM will see that same
>>>>>>>>> infinite behavior.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The point is that that behavior of the input to embedded_H must be
>>>>>>>> measured relative to the pathological relationship or it is not
>>>>>>>> measuring the actual behavior of the actual input.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, the behavior measured must be the DEFINED behavior, which IS
>>>>>>> the behavior of the ACTUAL MACHINE.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That Halts, so H gets the wrong answer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I know that this is totally obvious thus I had to conclude that
>>>>>>>> anyone
>>>>>>>> denying it must be a liar that is only playing head games for
>>>>>>>> sadistic
>>>>>>>> pleasure.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, the fact that you think what you say shows that you are a
>>>>>>> TOTAL IDIOT.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I did not take into account the power of group think that got at
>>>>>>>> least
>>>>>>>> 100 million Americans to believe the election fraud changed the
>>>>>>>> outcome
>>>>>>>> of the 2020 election even though there is zero evidence of this
>>>>>>>> anywhere. Even a huge cash prize offered by the Lt. governor of
>>>>>>>> Texas
>>>>>>>> only turned up one Republican that cheated.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope, you just don't understand the truth. You are ready for the
>>>>>>> truth, because it shows that you have been wrong, and you fragile
>>>>>>> ego can't handle that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Only during the 2022 election did it look like this was starting
>>>>>>>> to turn
>>>>>>>> around a little bit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You have been wrong a lot longer than that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The problem is that you SHD is NOT a UTM, and thus the fact
>>>>>>>>> that it aborts its simulation and returns an answer changes the
>>>>>>>>> behavior of the machine that USED it (compared to a UTM), and
>>>>>>>>> thus to be "correct", the SHD needs to take that into account.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I used to think that you were simply lying to play head games,
>>>>>>>>>> I no
>>>>>>>>>> longer believe this. Now I believe that you are ensnared by
>>>>>>>>>> group-think.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope, YOU are the one ensnared in your own fantasy world of lies.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Group-think is the way that 40% of the electorate could
>>>>>>>>>> honestly believe
>>>>>>>>>> that significant voter fraud changed the outcome of the 2020
>>>>>>>>>> election
>>>>>>>>>> even though there has very persistently been zero evidence of
>>>>>>>>>> this.
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/groupthink
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And you fantasy world is why you think that a Halt Decider,
>>>>>>>>> which is DEFINIED that H(D,D) needs to return the answer
>>>>>>>>> "Halting" if D(D) Halts, is correct to give the answer
>>>>>>>>> non-halting even though D(D) Ha;ts.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You are just beliving your own lies.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hopefully they will not believe that Fox news paid $787
>>>>>>>>>> million to trick
>>>>>>>>>> people into believing that there was no voter fraud.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, they are paying $787 million BECAUSE they tried to gain
>>>>>>>>> views by telling them the lies they wanted to hear.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, but even now 30% of the electorate may still believe the lies.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, you seem to beleive in 100% of your lies.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, there is a portion of the population that fails to see what
>>>>>>> is true, because, like you, they think their own ideas are more
>>>>>>> important that what actually is true. As was philosophized, they
>>>>>>> ignore the truth, but listen to what their itching ears what to
>>>>>>> hear. That fits you to the T, as you won't see the errors that
>>>>>>> are pointed out to you, and you make up more lies to try to hide
>>>>>>> your errors.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> At least they KNEW they were lying, but didn't care, and had to
>>>>>>>>> pay the price.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You don't seem to understand that you are lying just as bad as
>>>>>>>>> they were.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am absolutely not lying Truth is the most important thing to
>>>>>>>> me even
>>>>>>>> much more important than love.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> THen why to you lie so much, or are you just that stupid.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is clear you just don't know what you are talking about and
>>>>>>> are just making stuff up.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It seems you have lied so much that you have convinced yourself
>>>>>>> of your lies, and can no longer bear to let the truth in, so you
>>>>>>> just deny anything that goes against your lies.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You have killed your own mind.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All of this work is aimed at formalizing the notion of truth
>>>>>>>> because the
>>>>>>>> HP, LP, IT and Tarski's Undefinability theorem are all instances
>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>> same Olcott(2004) pathological self-reference error.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, maybe you need to realize that Truth has to match what is
>>>>>>> actually true, and you need to work with the definitions that
>>>>>>> exist, not the alternate ideas you make up.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A Halt Decider is DEFINED that
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> H(M,w) needs to answer about the behavior of M(w).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You don't see to understand that, and it seems to even be a blind
>>>>>>> spot, as you like dropping that part when you quote what H is
>>>>>>> supposed to do.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You seem to see "see" self-references where there are not actual
>>>>>>> self-references, but the effect of the "self-reference" is built
>>>>>>> from simpler components. It seems you don't even understand what
>>>>>>> a "Self-Reference" actually is, maybe even what a "reference"
>>>>>>> actually is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For the halt decider, P is built on a COPY of the claimed decider
>>>>>>> and given a representation of that resultand machine. Not a
>>>>>>> single reference in sight.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Maybe they will believe that tiny space aliens living in the
>>>>>>>>>> heads of
>>>>>>>>>> Fox leadership took control of their brains and forced them to
>>>>>>>>>> pay.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The actual behavior of the actual input is correctly
>>>>>>>>>> determined by an
>>>>>>>>>> embedded UTM that has been adapted to watch the behavior of its
>>>>>>>>>> simulation of its input and match any non-halting behavior
>>>>>>>>>> patterns.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But embedded_H isn't "embedded_UTM", so you are just living a lie.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> embedded_H is embedded_UTM for the first N steps even when these
>>>>>>>> N steps
>>>>>>>> include 10,000 recursive simulations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope. Just your LIES. You clearly don't understand what a UTM is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> After 10,000 recursive simulations even an idiot can infer that
>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>> will not cause ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by embedded_H to reach its own
>>>>>>>> final state
>>>>>>>> of ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩ in any finite number of steps.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The fact that if embedded_H does 10,000 recursive simulations and
>>>>>>> aborts means that H^ will halt after 10,001.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your propblem is you logic only works if you can find an N that
>>>>>>> is bigger than N+1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You and I both know that mathematical induction proves this in
>>>>>>>> far less
>>>>>>>> than 10,000 recursive simulations. Why you deny it when you
>>>>>>>> should know
>>>>>>>> this is true is beyond me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope, you are just proving that you don't even know what
>>>>>>> mathematical induction means.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are just too stupid.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are just proving you are a liar.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You know that a halt decider must compute the mapping from its actual
>>>>>> input based on the actual specified behavior of this input and then
>>>>>> contradict yourself insisting that the actual behavior of this actual
>>>>>> input is the wrong behavior to measure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Right, and the "ACtual Specified Behavior" of the input is DEFINED
>>>>> to be the ACTUAL BEHAVIOR of the machine that input represents,
>>>>
>>>> *When you say that P must be ~P instead of P we know that you are
>>>> wacky*
>>>
>>> What ~P
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The actual behavior of ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated by embedded_H is
>>>> necessarily the behavior of the first N steps of ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly
>>>> simulated
>>>> by embedded_H. From these N steps we can prove by mathematical
>>>> induction
>>>> that ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated by embedded_H cannot possibly reach it own
>>>> final state of ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩ in any finite number of steps.
>>>
>>> But we don't care about the "First N steps of (Ĥ) correctly
>>> simulated", we care about the behavior of the actual machine Ĥ (Ĥ) or
>>> the actual FULL correct simulation of UTM (Ĥ) (Ĥ) [ie the input to H]
>>
>> The actual behavior of the input is the behavior of N steps correctly
>> simulated by embedded_H because embedded_H remains a UTM until it aborts
>> its simulation.
>>
>
> ILLOGICAL STATEMENT.

On 4/26/23 10:34 PM, olcott wrote:

> The actual behavior of the actual input is not necessarily the behavior
> of a non-input as it has been assumed since forever.
>
>

But it isn't a "non-input" but is an actual property of the actual
input, and the property DEFINED as what the decider is supposed to decide.

Your inability to understand this simple requirement has made you life a
total waste.

You just don't seem to understand even the simplest of truths, likely
because you are just a pathological liar and truth means nothing to you.

On 4/27/2023 6:19 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 4/26/23 10:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>
>> The actual behavior of the actual input is not necessarily the
>> behavior of a non-input as it has been assumed since forever.
>>
>>
>
> But it isn't a "non-input" but is an actual property of the actual
> input, and the property DEFINED as what the decider is supposed to decide.
>

The actual behavior of the actual input MUST take into account that
pathological relationship between Ĥ and embedded_H.

> Your inability to understand this simple requirement has made you life a
> total waste.
>
> You just don't seem to understand even the simplest of truths, likely
> because you are just a pathological liar and truth means nothing to you.
I have said that this is my life's one legacy.
Everyone besides you believes that I believe what I say.
I can't be an actual liar if I believe what I say.

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 4/27/23 9:15 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/27/2023 6:19 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 4/26/23 10:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>
>>> The actual behavior of the actual input is not necessarily the
>>> behavior of a non-input as it has been assumed since forever.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> But it isn't a "non-input" but is an actual property of the actual
>> input, and the property DEFINED as what the decider is supposed to
>> decide.
>>
>
> The actual behavior of the actual input MUST take into account that
> pathological relationship between Ĥ and embedded_H.
>
>> Your inability to understand this simple requirement has made you life
>> a total waste.
>>
>> You just don't seem to understand even the simplest of truths, likely
>> because you are just a pathological liar and truth means nothing to you.
> I have said that this is my life's one legacy.
> Everyone besides you believes that I believe what I say.
> I can't be an actual liar if I believe what I say.
>

You are just proving yourself to be a liar.

Just because you "believe" it doesn't totally make it not a lie. An
"innocent" mistake is not a lie, but when said with a blatant disregard
for the actual truth, it becomes a lie.

You "Legacy" is that you were an ignorant lying idiot.

If you REALLY actually believe the CRAP that you spew out, then you are
just proving that you are mentally incompetent.

On 4/27/2023 9:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 4/27/23 9:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/27/2023 6:19 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 4/26/23 10:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>>> The actual behavior of the actual input is not necessarily the
>>>> behavior of a non-input as it has been assumed since forever.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> But it isn't a "non-input" but is an actual property of the actual
>>> input, and the property DEFINED as what the decider is supposed to
>>> decide.
>>>
>>
>> The actual behavior of the actual input MUST take into account that
>> pathological relationship between Ĥ and embedded_H.
>>
>>> Your inability to understand this simple requirement has made you
>>> life a total waste.
>>>
>>> You just don't seem to understand even the simplest of truths, likely
>>> because you are just a pathological liar and truth means nothing to you.
>> I have said that this is my life's one legacy.
>> Everyone besides you believes that I believe what I say.
>> I can't be an actual liar if I believe what I say.
>>
>
> You are just proving yourself to be a liar.
>
> Just because you "believe" it doesn't totally make it not a lie.

YES IT DOES (and you call me stupid) !!!
a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional
untruth. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/lie

YES IT DOES (and you call me stupid) !!!
a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional
untruth. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/lie

YES IT DOES (and you call me stupid) !!!
a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional
untruth. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/lie

YES IT DOES (and you call me stupid) !!!
a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional
untruth. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/lie

YES IT DOES (and you call me stupid) !!!
a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional
untruth. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/lie

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 4/27/23 11:15 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/27/2023 9:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 4/27/23 9:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/27/2023 6:19 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 4/26/23 10:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The actual behavior of the actual input is not necessarily the
>>>>> behavior of a non-input as it has been assumed since forever.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But it isn't a "non-input" but is an actual property of the actual
>>>> input, and the property DEFINED as what the decider is supposed to
>>>> decide.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The actual behavior of the actual input MUST take into account that
>>> pathological relationship between Ĥ and embedded_H.
>>>
>>>> Your inability to understand this simple requirement has made you
>>>> life a total waste.
>>>>
>>>> You just don't seem to understand even the simplest of truths,
>>>> likely because you are just a pathological liar and truth means
>>>> nothing to you.
>>> I have said that this is my life's one legacy.
>>> Everyone besides you believes that I believe what I say.
>>> I can't be an actual liar if I believe what I say.
>>>
>>
>> You are just proving yourself to be a liar.
>>
>> Just because you "believe" it doesn't totally make it not a lie.
>
> YES IT DOES (and you call me stupid) !!!
> a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional
> untruth. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/lie
>
> YES IT DOES (and you call me stupid) !!!
> a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional
> untruth. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/lie
>
> YES IT DOES (and you call me stupid) !!!
> a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional
> untruth. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/lie
>
> YES IT DOES (and you call me stupid) !!!
> a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional
> untruth. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/lie
>
> YES IT DOES (and you call me stupid) !!!
> a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional
> untruth. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/lie
>

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/lie

3 an inaccurate or untrue statement; falsehood:
When I went to school, history books were full of lies, and I won't
teach lies to kids.

5 to express what is false; convey a false impression.

It does not ALWAYS require actual knowledge that the statement is incorrect.

Again, you fail by the fallacy of attempting proof by example.

For example, note that in the recent defamation suit, its wasn't needed
to prove that they "Knew" the statement to be for sure false, but to
have a blatant disregard for what is true.

You have been presented able evidence that you statements are untrue,
and any normal competent person would see it, therefore your repeating
the statements are just pathological lies. Lies because they are wrong
and pathological because you appear to be incapable of actually knowing
the truth.

On 4/28/2023 6:40 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 4/27/23 11:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/27/2023 9:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 4/27/23 9:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/27/2023 6:19 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 4/26/23 10:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The actual behavior of the actual input is not necessarily the
>>>>>> behavior of a non-input as it has been assumed since forever.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But it isn't a "non-input" but is an actual property of the actual
>>>>> input, and the property DEFINED as what the decider is supposed to
>>>>> decide.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The actual behavior of the actual input MUST take into account that
>>>> pathological relationship between Ĥ and embedded_H.
>>>>
>>>>> Your inability to understand this simple requirement has made you
>>>>> life a total waste.
>>>>>
>>>>> You just don't seem to understand even the simplest of truths,
>>>>> likely because you are just a pathological liar and truth means
>>>>> nothing to you.
>>>> I have said that this is my life's one legacy.
>>>> Everyone besides you believes that I believe what I say.
>>>> I can't be an actual liar if I believe what I say.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You are just proving yourself to be a liar.
>>>
>>> Just because you "believe" it doesn't totally make it not a lie.
>>
>> YES IT DOES (and you call me stupid) !!!
>> a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an
>> intentional untruth. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/lie
>>
>> YES IT DOES (and you call me stupid) !!!
>> a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an
>> intentional untruth. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/lie
>>
>> YES IT DOES (and you call me stupid) !!!
>> a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an
>> intentional untruth. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/lie
>>
>> YES IT DOES (and you call me stupid) !!!
>> a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an
>> intentional untruth. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/lie
>>
>> YES IT DOES (and you call me stupid) !!!
>> a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an
>> intentional untruth. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/lie
>>
>
> https://www.dictionary.com/browse/lie
>
> 3 an inaccurate or untrue statement; falsehood:
>   When I went to school, history books were full of lies, and I won't
>  teach lies to kids.
>
> 5 to express what is false; convey a false impression.
>
>
> It does not ALWAYS require actual knowledge that the statement is
> incorrect.
>

Yes it does and you are stupid for saying otherwise.

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 4/28/23 10:59 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/28/2023 6:40 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

>> https://www.dictionary.com/browse/lie
>>
>> 3 an inaccurate or untrue statement; falsehood:
>>    When I went to school, history books were full of lies, and I won't
>>   teach lies to kids.
>>
>> 5 to express what is false; convey a false impression.
>>
>>
>> It does not ALWAYS require actual knowledge that the statement is
>> incorrect.
>>
>
> Yes it does and you are stupid for saying otherwise.
>

Then why do the definition I quoted say otherwise?

That just shows you are the one that is stupid, and a liar.

On 4/28/2023 10:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 4/28/23 10:59 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/28/2023 6:40 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
>>> https://www.dictionary.com/browse/lie
>>>
>>> 3 an inaccurate or untrue statement; falsehood:
>>>    When I went to school, history books were full of lies, and I
>>> won't   teach lies to kids.
>>>
>>> 5 to express what is false; convey a false impression.
>>>
>>>
>>> It does not ALWAYS require actual knowledge that the statement is
>>> incorrect.
>>>
>>
>> Yes it does and you are stupid for saying otherwise.
>>
>
> Then why do the definition I quoted say otherwise?
>
> That just shows you are the one that is stupid, and a liar.

In other words you honestly believe that an honest mistake is a lie.
THAT MAKES YOU STUPID !!! (yet not a liar)

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 4/28/2023 10:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 4/28/23 10:59 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/28/2023 6:40 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
>>> https://www.dictionary.com/browse/lie
>>>
>>> 3 an inaccurate or untrue statement; falsehood:
>>>    When I went to school, history books were full of lies, and I
>>> won't   teach lies to kids.
>>>
>>> 5 to express what is false; convey a false impression.
>>>
>>>
>>> It does not ALWAYS require actual knowledge that the statement is
>>> incorrect.
>>>
>>
>> Yes it does and you are stupid for saying otherwise.
>>
>
> Then why do the definition I quoted say otherwise?
>
> That just shows you are the one that is stupid, and a liar.
>
>

In this case you are proving to be stupid: (yet not a liar)

1. Traditional Definition of Lying
There is no universally accepted definition of lying to others. The
dictionary definition of lying is “to make a false statement with the
intention to deceive” (OED 1989) but there are numerous problems with
this definition. It is both too narrow, since it requires falsity, and
too broad, since it allows for lying about something other than what is
being stated, and lying to someone who is believed to be listening in
but who is not being addressed.

The most widely accepted definition of lying is the following: “A lie is
a statement made by one who does not believe it with the intention that
someone else shall be led to believe it” (Isenberg 1973, 248) (cf.
“[lying is] making a statement believed to be false, with the intention
of getting another to accept it as true” (Primoratz 1984, 54n2)). This
definition does not specify the addressee, however. It may be restated
as follows:

(L1) To lie =df to make a believed-false statement to another person
with the intention that the other person believe that statement to be true.

L1 is the traditional definition of lying. According to L1, there are at
least four necessary conditions for lying.

First, lying requires that a person make a statement (statement condition).

Second, lying requires that the person believe the statement to be
false; that is, lying requires that the statement be untruthful
(untruthfulness condition).

Third, lying requires that the untruthful statement be made to another
person (addressee condition).

Fourth, lying requires that the person intend that that other person
believe the untruthful statement to be true (intention to deceive the
addressee condition).

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lying-definition/#TraDefLyi

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 4/28/23 11:26 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/28/2023 10:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 4/28/23 10:59 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/28/2023 6:40 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>>>> https://www.dictionary.com/browse/lie
>>>>
>>>> 3 an inaccurate or untrue statement; falsehood:
>>>>    When I went to school, history books were full of lies, and I
>>>> won't   teach lies to kids.
>>>>
>>>> 5 to express what is false; convey a false impression.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It does not ALWAYS require actual knowledge that the statement is
>>>> incorrect.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes it does and you are stupid for saying otherwise.
>>>
>>
>> Then why do the definition I quoted say otherwise?
>>
>> That just shows you are the one that is stupid, and a liar.
>>
>>
>
> In this case you are proving to be stupid: (yet not a liar)
>
> 1. Traditional Definition of Lying
> There is no universally accepted definition of lying to others. The
> dictionary definition of lying is “to make a false statement with the
> intention to deceive” (OED 1989) but there are numerous problems with
> this definition. It is both too narrow, since it requires falsity, and
> too broad, since it allows for lying about something other than what is
> being stated, and lying to someone who is believed to be listening in
> but who is not being addressed.
>
> The most widely accepted definition of lying is the following: “A lie is
> a statement made by one who does not believe it with the intention that
> someone else shall be led to believe it” (Isenberg 1973, 248) (cf.
> “[lying is] making a statement believed to be false, with the intention
> of getting another to accept it as true” (Primoratz 1984, 54n2)). This
> definition does not specify the addressee, however. It may be restated
> as follows:
>
> (L1) To lie =df to make a believed-false statement to another person
> with the intention that the other person believe that statement to be true.
>
> L1 is the traditional definition of lying. According to L1, there are at
> least four necessary conditions for lying.
>
> First, lying requires that a person make a statement (statement condition).
>
> Second, lying requires that the person believe the statement to be
> false; that is, lying requires that the statement be untruthful
> (untruthfulness condition).
>
> Third, lying requires that the untruthful statement be made to another
> person (addressee condition).
>
> Fourth, lying requires that the person intend that that other person
> believe the untruthful statement to be true (intention to deceive the
> addressee condition).
>
> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lying-definition/#TraDefLyi
>
>

So, you are trying to use arguments to justify that you can say "false
statements" and not be considered a liar.

The fact that you seem to have KNOWN that the generally accept truth
differed from your ideas does not excuse you from claiming that you can
say them as FACT, and not be a liar.

The fact that your error has been pointed out an enormous number of
times, makes you blatant disregard for the actual truth, a suitable
stand in for your own belief.

If you don't understand from all instruction you have been given that
you are wrong, you are just proved to be totally mentally incapable.

If you want to claim that you are not a liar by reason of insanity, make
that plea, but that just becomes an admission that you are a
pathological liar, a liar because of a mental illness.

On 4/28/23 11:21 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/28/2023 10:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 4/28/23 10:59 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/28/2023 6:40 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>>>> https://www.dictionary.com/browse/lie
>>>>
>>>> 3 an inaccurate or untrue statement; falsehood:
>>>>    When I went to school, history books were full of lies, and I
>>>> won't   teach lies to kids.
>>>>
>>>> 5 to express what is false; convey a false impression.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It does not ALWAYS require actual knowledge that the statement is
>>>> incorrect.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes it does and you are stupid for saying otherwise.
>>>
>>
>> Then why do the definition I quoted say otherwise?
>>
>> That just shows you are the one that is stupid, and a liar.
>
> In other words you honestly believe that an honest mistake is a lie.
> THAT MAKES YOU STUPID !!!  (yet not a liar)
>

So, you ADMIT that you ideas are a "Mistake"?

You ADMIT that your statements are untrue because you ideas, while
sincerly held by you, are admitted to be WRONG?

Note, these definition point to statements which are made that are
clearly false can be considered as lies on their face value.

Note also, I tend to use the term "Pathological liar", which implies
this sort error, the speaker, due to mental deficiencies have lost the
ability to actual know what is true or false. This seems to describe you
to the T.

I also use the term "Ignorant Liar" which means you lie out of a lack of
knowledge of the truth.

On 4/28/2023 10:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 4/28/23 11:26 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/28/2023 10:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 4/28/23 10:59 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/28/2023 6:40 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>>>> https://www.dictionary.com/browse/lie
>>>>>
>>>>> 3 an inaccurate or untrue statement; falsehood:
>>>>>    When I went to school, history books were full of lies, and I
>>>>> won't   teach lies to kids.
>>>>>
>>>>> 5 to express what is false; convey a false impression.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It does not ALWAYS require actual knowledge that the statement is
>>>>> incorrect.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes it does and you are stupid for saying otherwise.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Then why do the definition I quoted say otherwise?
>>>
>>> That just shows you are the one that is stupid, and a liar.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> In this case you are proving to be stupid: (yet not a liar)
>>
>> 1. Traditional Definition of Lying
>> There is no universally accepted definition of lying to others. The
>> dictionary definition of lying is “to make a false statement with the
>> intention to deceive” (OED 1989) but there are numerous problems with
>> this definition. It is both too narrow, since it requires falsity, and
>> too broad, since it allows for lying about something other than what
>> is being stated, and lying to someone who is believed to be listening
>> in but who is not being addressed.
>>
>> The most widely accepted definition of lying is the following: “A lie
>> is a statement made by one who does not believe it with the intention
>> that someone else shall be led to believe it” (Isenberg 1973, 248)
>> (cf. “[lying is] making a statement believed to be false, with the
>> intention of getting another to accept it as true” (Primoratz 1984,
>> 54n2)). This definition does not specify the addressee, however. It
>> may be restated as follows:
>>
>> (L1) To lie =df to make a believed-false statement to another person
>> with the intention that the other person believe that statement to be
>> true.
>>
>> L1 is the traditional definition of lying. According to L1, there are
>> at least four necessary conditions for lying.
>>
>> First, lying requires that a person make a statement (statement
>> condition).
>>
>> Second, lying requires that the person believe the statement to be
>> false; that is, lying requires that the statement be untruthful
>> (untruthfulness condition).
>>
>> Third, lying requires that the untruthful statement be made to another
>> person (addressee condition).
>>
>> Fourth, lying requires that the person intend that that other person
>> believe the untruthful statement to be true (intention to deceive the
>> addressee condition).
>>
>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lying-definition/#TraDefLyi
>>
>>
>
> So, you are trying to use arguments to justify that you can say "false
> statements" and not be considered a liar.
>
> The fact that you seem to have KNOWN that the generally accept truth
> differed from your ideas does not excuse you from claiming that you can
> say them as FACT, and not be a liar.
>

When I say that an idea is a fact I mean that it is a semantic
tautology. That you don't understand things well enough to verify that
it is a semantic tautology does not even make my assertion false.

> The fact that your error has been pointed out an enormous number of
> times, makes you blatant disregard for the actual truth, a suitable
> stand in for your own belief.
>

That fact that no one has understood my semantic tautologies only proves
that no one has understood my semantic tautologies. It does not even
prove that my assertion is incorrect.

> If you don't understand from all instruction you have been given that
> you are wrong, you are just proved to be totally mentally incapable.
>
> If you want to claim that you are not a liar by reason of insanity, make
> that plea, but that just becomes an admission that you are a
> pathological liar, a liar because of a mental illness.
>

That you continue to believe that lies do not require an intention to
deceive after the above has been pointed out makes you willfully
ignorant, yet still not a liar.

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 4/28/2023 10:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 4/28/23 11:21 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/28/2023 10:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 4/28/23 10:59 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/28/2023 6:40 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>>>> https://www.dictionary.com/browse/lie
>>>>>
>>>>> 3 an inaccurate or untrue statement; falsehood:
>>>>>    When I went to school, history books were full of lies, and I
>>>>> won't   teach lies to kids.
>>>>>
>>>>> 5 to express what is false; convey a false impression.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It does not ALWAYS require actual knowledge that the statement is
>>>>> incorrect.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes it does and you are stupid for saying otherwise.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Then why do the definition I quoted say otherwise?
>>>
>>> That just shows you are the one that is stupid, and a liar.
>>
>> In other words you honestly believe that an honest mistake is a lie.
>> THAT MAKES YOU STUPID !!!  (yet not a liar)
>>
>
> So, you ADMIT that you ideas are a "Mistake"?
>

No, to the best of my knowledge I have correctly proved all of my
assertions are semantic tautologies thus necessarily true.

The fact that few besides me understand that they are semantic
tautologies is not actual rebuttal at all.

> You ADMIT that your statements are untrue because you ideas, while
> sincerly held by you, are admitted to be WRONG?
>
> Note, these definition point to statements which are made that are
> clearly false can be considered as lies on their face value.
>

I can call you a liar on the basis that when you sleep at night you
probably lie down. This is not what is meant by liar.

> Note also, I tend to use the term "Pathological liar", which implies
> this sort error, the speaker, due to mental deficiencies have lost the
> ability to actual know what is true or false. This seems to describe you
> to the T.
>
> I also use the term "Ignorant Liar" which means you lie out of a lack of
> knowledge of the truth.