On 3/29/2024 8:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/28/24 10:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/28/2024 9:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/28/24 9:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/28/2024 7:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 3/28/24 11:17 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/28/2024 6:46 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/27/24 11:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2024 10:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/24 11:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2024 10:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/24 10:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2024 9:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/24 10:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2024 8:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/24 9:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2024 7:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/24 3:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2024 2:09 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 27.mrt.2024 om 15:09 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2024 4:55 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 26.mrt.2024 om 15:43 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/26/2024 3:51 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 25.mrt.2024 om 23:50 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/24/2024 11:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-03-24 03:39:12 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2024 9:54 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/03/24 03:40, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2024 9:34 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/03/24 03:15, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2024 8:40 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/03/24 00:29, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2024 5:58 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 23/03/24 16:02, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) H(D,D) that DOES abort its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation is correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      (ABOUT THIS ABORT DECISION)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      because it would halt and all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deciders must always halt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To be a decider it has to give an answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To be a halt decider it has to give an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer that is the same as whether the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> direct execution of its input would halt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That would entail that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tough shit. That is the requirement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I proved otherwise in the parts you erased.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You proved that the requirement is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually the requirement?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I proved that it cannot be a coherent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requirement, it can still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be an incoherent requirement. Try and think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it through for yourself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every program/input pair either halts some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time, or never halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Determining this is a coherent requirement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That part is coherent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The part that this determination must be done
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by a Turing machine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using descriptions of the program and input is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coherent, too.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every decider is required by definition to only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> report on what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this input specifies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int sum(int x, int y){ return x + y; }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sum(3,4) is not allowed to report on the sum of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5 + 6
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even if you really really believe that it should.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Exactly! Therefore H(D,D), where D is based on H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that aborts and returns false, so that D halts,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should not return a report about another D that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does not halt, even if you really really believe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it should.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is enough information for sum(3,4) to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compute the sum of 3+4.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is NOT enough information for sum(3,4) to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compute the sum of 5+6.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is enough information for H1(D,D) to compute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halts(D,D).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is NOT enough information for H(D,D) to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compute Halts(D,D).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But it is possible to create a simulating sum
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider that aborts sum and returns the sum of 5+6
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and then claim that it is right, because it has not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enough information to calculate 3+4. It is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible, but wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only reason it has not enough information, is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it aborts prematurely. That makes the decision
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to abort wrong. This holds for H as well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why are you denying reality?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott is frustrated, but wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can D correctly simulated by H terminate normally?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 01 int D(ptr x)  // ptr is pointer to int function
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 02 {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 03   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 04   if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 05     HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 06   return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 07 }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 08
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 09 void main()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10 {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 11   H(D,D);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 12 }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Execution Trace*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Line 11: main() invokes H(D,D);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *keeps repeating* (unless aborted)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Line 03: simulated D(D) invokes simulated H(D,D)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that simulates D(D)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wrong. Should be:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *will return false* (unless aborted)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no possible way that D simulated by any H ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returns false whether its simulation has been aborted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you fibbing about your programming  skill?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But that statement only hold in a world where the only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulator is H,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes that has always been the freaking point that you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deep dodging to run out the clock of my rebuttals.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which isn't the world you claim to be in, that of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> COMPUTASTION THEORY.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you want to talk about a universe with only two "sets"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Programs, H and D, then SAY SO, and admit that you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about something WORTHLESS.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and a D that magically changes (and thus not actually a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valid model)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *D IS ALWAYS THESE MACHINE CODE BYTES*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 83c4088945fc837dfc007402ebfe8b45fc8be55dc3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And thus is NOT an actual PROGRAM, so outside the bounds
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the theory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is just a LIE.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every time you call me a liar puts you closer to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, since I speak the truth when I say it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You just plant yourself deeper when you deny it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Remember, your "beleif" doesn't matter to God. A LIE is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the speaking of a FALSEHOOD, whether known or not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT IS FALSE.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> God is the God of TRUTH.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> People who honestly beleive the wrong things about God,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are still going to experience his WRATH, because he gives
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> us enough evidence, if we are willing to beleive him. He
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also gives us enough rope, that we can hang ourselves on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our own self-deceptions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A God that <is> Love and <has> Wrath cannot possibly exist
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because love itself has no wrath.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, you just don't understand, and it is just too
>>>>>>>>>>>>> complicated to explain to you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Loving others with empathy goes directly against the inherently
>>>>>>>>>>>> selfish human nature and aligns with the divine nature.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But doesn't mean you are loving them in the way you are told
>>>>>>>>>>> to love them.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Loving them with empathy is the correct criterion measure.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope, loving them with agape is the correct criterion measure,
>>>>>>>>> something you can't understand as you don't know god.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes that would be the correct criterion measure.
>>>>>>>> That is over most people's heads so loving others with
>>>>>>>> empathy cuts off loving them with self-righteous judgment.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Except it doesn't get you to where you need to be.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> According to your fallible estimation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps in part, but it also doesn't meet the definition of what we
>>>>> are to do.
>>>>>
>>>> What is your infallible measure of this?
>>>
>>> I don't claim to be infallible.
>>>
>>> I can just count on GOD to be.
>>>
>>> If you want to take your own feelings over the clear wording of the
>>> Word, go ahead.
>>
>> Galatians 5:14 NRSV
>> 14 For the whole law is summed up in a single commandment,
>> “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
>>
>> I am not taking my feelings over the above clear wording.
>> I am taking those words to means 100% perfectly what they say.
>
> But out of context. As has been said, a TEXT taken out of CONTEXT is
> just a PRETEXT.
>

On 3/29/24 11:23 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/29/2024 8:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/28/24 10:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/28/2024 9:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/28/24 9:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/28/2024 7:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/28/24 11:17 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/28/2024 6:46 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/27/24 11:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2024 10:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/24 11:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2024 10:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/24 10:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2024 9:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/24 10:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2024 8:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/24 9:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2024 7:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/24 3:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2024 2:09 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 27.mrt.2024 om 15:09 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2024 4:55 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 26.mrt.2024 om 15:43 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/26/2024 3:51 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 25.mrt.2024 om 23:50 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/24/2024 11:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-03-24 03:39:12 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2024 9:54 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/03/24 03:40, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2024 9:34 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/03/24 03:15, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2024 8:40 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/03/24 00:29, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2024 5:58 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 23/03/24 16:02, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) H(D,D) that DOES abort its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation is correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      (ABOUT THIS ABORT DECISION)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      because it would halt and all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deciders must always halt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To be a decider it has to give an answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To be a halt decider it has to give an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer that is the same as whether the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> direct execution of its input would halt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That would entail that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tough shit. That is the requirement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I proved otherwise in the parts you erased.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You proved that the requirement is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually the requirement?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I proved that it cannot be a coherent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requirement, it can still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be an incoherent requirement. Try and think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it through for yourself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every program/input pair either halts some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time, or never halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Determining this is a coherent requirement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That part is coherent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The part that this determination must be done
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by a Turing machine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using descriptions of the program and input is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coherent, too.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every decider is required by definition to only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> report on what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this input specifies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int sum(int x, int y){ return x + y; }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sum(3,4) is not allowed to report on the sum of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5 + 6
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even if you really really believe that it should.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Exactly! Therefore H(D,D), where D is based on H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that aborts and returns false, so that D halts,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should not return a report about another D that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does not halt, even if you really really believe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it should.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is enough information for sum(3,4) to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compute the sum of 3+4.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is NOT enough information for sum(3,4) to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compute the sum of 5+6.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is enough information for H1(D,D) to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compute Halts(D,D).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is NOT enough information for H(D,D) to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compute Halts(D,D).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But it is possible to create a simulating sum
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider that aborts sum and returns the sum of 5+6
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and then claim that it is right, because it has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not enough information to calculate 3+4. It is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible, but wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only reason it has not enough information, is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it aborts prematurely. That makes the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decision to abort wrong. This holds for H as well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why are you denying reality?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott is frustrated, but wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can D correctly simulated by H terminate normally?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 01 int D(ptr x)  // ptr is pointer to int function
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 02 {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 03   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 04   if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 05     HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 06   return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 07 }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 08
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 09 void main()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10 {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 11   H(D,D);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 12 }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Execution Trace*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Line 11: main() invokes H(D,D);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *keeps repeating* (unless aborted)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Line 03: simulated D(D) invokes simulated H(D,D)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that simulates D(D)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wrong. Should be:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *will return false* (unless aborted)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no possible way that D simulated by any H ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returns false whether its simulation has been aborted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you fibbing about your programming  skill?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But that statement only hold in a world where the only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulator is H,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes that has always been the freaking point that you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deep dodging to run out the clock of my rebuttals.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which isn't the world you claim to be in, that of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> COMPUTASTION THEORY.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you want to talk about a universe with only two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "sets" of Programs, H and D, then SAY SO, and admit that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are talking about something WORTHLESS.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and a D that magically changes (and thus not actually
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a valid model)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *D IS ALWAYS THESE MACHINE CODE BYTES*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 83c4088945fc837dfc007402ebfe8b45fc8be55dc3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And thus is NOT an actual PROGRAM, so outside the bounds
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the theory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is just a LIE.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every time you call me a liar puts you closer to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, since I speak the truth when I say it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You just plant yourself deeper when you deny it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Remember, your "beleif" doesn't matter to God. A LIE is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the speaking of a FALSEHOOD, whether known or not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT IS FALSE.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> God is the God of TRUTH.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> People who honestly beleive the wrong things about God,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are still going to experience his WRATH, because he
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gives us enough evidence, if we are willing to beleive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> him. He also gives us enough rope, that we can hang
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ourselves on our own self-deceptions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A God that <is> Love and <has> Wrath cannot possibly exist
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because love itself has no wrath.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, you just don't understand, and it is just too
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complicated to explain to you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Loving others with empathy goes directly against the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> inherently
>>>>>>>>>>>>> selfish human nature and aligns with the divine nature.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But doesn't mean you are loving them in the way you are told
>>>>>>>>>>>> to love them.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Loving them with empathy is the correct criterion measure.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nope, loving them with agape is the correct criterion measure,
>>>>>>>>>> something you can't understand as you don't know god.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes that would be the correct criterion measure.
>>>>>>>>> That is over most people's heads so loving others with
>>>>>>>>> empathy cuts off loving them with self-righteous judgment.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Except it doesn't get you to where you need to be.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> According to your fallible estimation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps in part, but it also doesn't meet the definition of what
>>>>>> we are to do.
>>>>>>
>>>>> What is your infallible measure of this?
>>>>
>>>> I don't claim to be infallible.
>>>>
>>>> I can just count on GOD to be.
>>>>
>>>> If you want to take your own feelings over the clear wording of the
>>>> Word, go ahead.
>>>
>>> Galatians 5:14 NRSV
>>> 14 For the whole law is summed up in a single commandment,
>>> “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
>>>
>>> I am not taking my feelings over the above clear wording.
>>> I am taking those words to means 100% perfectly what they say.
>>
>> But out of context. As has been said, a TEXT taken out of CONTEXT is
>> just a PRETEXT.
>>
>
> There is zero context that could possibly change the meaning of those
> words.