Re: [PO] Re: Can a regular Turing Machine provide Protected Memory?

From: Peter Olcott (olcott_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 08/29/04 

Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 13:46:09 GMT

"Simon G Best" <s.g.best@btopenworld.com> wrote in message news:4131B073.8000909@btopenworld.com...
> Here is the proof that you are a liar.
>
> But first, let's punish you some more anyway :-)
>
> Peter Olcott wrote:
> > "Simon G Best" <s.g.best@btopenworld.com> wrote in message news:4130B2EA.5000909@btopenworld.com...
> >
> >>You obviously need some more punishment, so:
> >>
> >>String B: "String B will never be proven to constitute a true, valid
> >>statement."
> >>
> >>String C: "String B will never be proven to constitute a true, valid
> >>statement."
> >>
> >>String B will never be proven to constitute a true, valid statement.
> >>
> >>What about string C?
> >
> > String B is not a statement at all due to its infinitely recursive structure.
> > String C would be a true statement.
>
> They're exactly the same string. Try again.

They are not at all the same. The crucial difference is the reference.
When you merely change the label of string "B" to string "C", then
string "B" immediately loses its infinitely recursive structure and
becomes a valid statement. String B has infinitely recursive self
reference. String C does not have any sort of self-reference. That
is the difference that causes the former to be invalid, and the latter
to be valid. That is also why the Liar Paradox is not a paradox
at all, but, merely an incorrectly formed statement.

>
> [...]
>
> And now onto your lie.
>
> > The kookiest thing that I heard was probably the guy that proved
> > that no automobiles can ever possibly operate properly specifically
> > because they can be made to not operate properly.
>
> Did he /really/ 'prove', or even claim to prove, any such thing?
>
> > All that I has
> > to do was to substitute his reference to My Halt Analyzer with the
> > term Automobile.
>
> No. As you clearly admit here, you had to change what he said to make
> it seem that he was claiming something he simply wasn't claiming.
>
> You are clearly now a proven liar. This is proven by your own admission
> to having changed what he actually claimed.
>
> Simon
>
I am not a liar. I merely used his own reasoning. I did not
change the reasoning. I only changed the reference variable.
His reasoning proves that automobiles can never run specifically
because they can be caused to not run. His reasoning shows
that X will not function properly because X can be made to
not function properly. This is not at all any sort of lie.

Relevant Pages
Loading