Re: Liar detector: Fred, Richard, Joes and Alan --- Ben's agreement

Op 13.jul.2024 om 14:15 schreef olcott:

On 7/13/2024 2:48 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-12 13:07:13 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 7/12/2024 2:49 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-11 14:40:50 +0000, olcott said:

>
It is a hierarchy of prerequisites of knowledge.
Before anyone can understand a simulating termination
analyzer based on an x86 emulator they must understand
(1) x86 emulation
(2) Termination Analysis.

>
The order should be:
(1) termination analysis and termination analyzer,
(2) simulating termination analyzer,
(3) x86,
(4) x86 emulation,
(5) simulating termination analyzer based on an x86 emulator.
>

>
*That order has proven to not work*
People are getting stuck on x86 emulation.

>
In that case it is likely that no order that contains x86 emulation at
any point will not work.
>

 The issue with this is that people believe that they
can disagree with the x86 language. That is the same
as disagreeing with arithmetic, not allowed.
 

The real issue is that olcott thinks he can change the semantics of the x86 language at will. He thinks that the behaviour of a program does not change if it is halted halfway its execution. Therefore, he does not understand that when the simulation of a halting program is aborted before it reaches its end, it is still a correct simulation according to the semantics of the x86 language.