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

On 7/18/2024 9:13 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 18.jul.2024 om 15:17 schreef olcott:

On 7/18/2024 2:40 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-17 13:00:55 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 7/17/2024 1:43 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-16 14:21:28 +0000, olcott said:

>
When simulated input DDD stops running {if and only if}
the simulation of this input DDD has been aborted this
necessitates that input DDD specifies non-halting behavior

>
DDD does not stop runnig unless it is completely exeuted.

>
_DDD()
[00002163] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002164] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002166] 6863210000 push 00002163 ; push DDD
[0000216b] e853f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DDD)
[00002170] 83c404     add esp,+04
[00002173] 5d         pop ebp
[00002174] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002174]
>
DDD emulated by HHH according to the semantic meaning of
its x86 instructions never stop running unless aborted.

>
You mean HHH's simulation of DDD may not termite before HHH aborts it?

>
When we examine the infinite set of every HHH/DDD pair such that:
HHH₁ one step of DDD₁ is correctly emulated by HHH₁.
HHH₂ two steps of DDD₂ are correctly emulated by HHH₂.
HHH₃ three steps of DDD₃ are correctly emulated by HHH₃.
...
HHH∞ The emulation of DDD∞ by HHH∞ never stops running.

 And we have proved that each of these infinite set of simulations is incorrect.
 

>
When each DDD of the HHH/DDD pairs above is correctly emulated
by its corresponding HHH according to the semantic meaning of its
x86 instructions it CANNOT POSSIBLY reach past its own machine
address 0000216b, not even by an act of God.

 Which proves that the simulation is incorrect.

As long as each instruction is simulated according to its
semantic meaning then even of God himself disagrees that it
is correct then God himself is wrong.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer