Re: Liar detector: Peter OLCOTT YES!

On 7/3/24 2:20 PM, olcott wrote:

_DDD()
[00002172] 55               push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec             mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000       push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff       call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404           add esp,+04
[00002182] 5d               pop ebp
[00002183] c3               ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
 DDD correctly emulated by any element of the infinite
set of every pure function HHH cannot possibly reach
its own ret instruction and halt. That HHH aborts its
emulation at some point or never aborts its emulation
cannot possibly change this.
 

No, you are just showing your ignorance.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to "Correctly Emulate" this input per the semantics of the x86 instruction set as given, as it referncee undefined memory.
So, your claim is just a lie.
Now, if we included ALL of memory as the input, as you seem to want to do, but illogically also want to exclude so you can change it (to foist your deception), the it is possible to correctly emulate this input, but each different version of HHH must be considered to be a DIFFERENT input, as that memory contents we needed to add was different for each of them.
Now, since "Behavior of the input" needs to be defined as something that is ONLY a function of that input, and NOT what machine is looking at it, and the standard definiton of that behavior is what the program the input represents does when run, or what a complete emulation of that input would do.
So, while it seems that no HHH can emulate the input based on itself to the return point, the "Behavior" of that input, WILL reach that point for EVERY HHH that chooses the abort and return option, and every other one that doesn't just fails to be the decider you want it to be.
Thus, your "claimed" criteria, which can not be a "property of the input" might be a correct answer for the improper subjective question, but not for any "valid" criteria, especially since you have made it clear that this is part of your path to disproveing the halting theorem.
Also, just to point out, your HHH MUST emulate the instructions of HHH in responce to see the call instruction and NOT just "go down a level of indirection" becuase you have defined you emulation to be based on the x86 language, which doesn't support that behaivor, and even in more generalized emulations, that is only valid if HHH was an UNCONDITIONAL emulator (and not a correctly emulate until... type of emulator) which is can not be unless you agree that it isn't a decider.
So, we are back to your issue that you have been unable to actual produce a trace of the emulation done by HHH, so you can't even prove that it does its partial emulation correctly or show what its criteria of aborting based on such an emulation is.
Also, since you argument seems to be only basee on making unsubstantiated claims (you have yet to show any source from the refernce field that shows your idea of a correct emulation of HHH switching levels as all your published traces do is valid), and you just use ad hominem attack, shows that you also don't understand how logic actually works.
So, YOU are show to be the one using deceit and lies.