Re: Olcott seems to be willfully ignorant --- AKA is Fred a Liar ?

Op 03.jul.2024 om 20:04 schreef olcott:

On 7/3/2024 1:01 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 03.jul.2024 om 18:24 schreef olcott:

On 7/3/2024 11:18 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 7/3/2024 11:04 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 03.jul.2024 om 17:51 schreef olcott:

On 7/3/2024 10:40 AM, Fred. Zwarts 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]

>

*This is the repeating state*

>

But not an *infinitely* repeating state.

>

The criteria that I spent two years writing and the best selling
author of theory of computation textbooks agrees with says nothing
about *infinitely* repeating state.

>

Irrelevant, because that is about a correct simulation. Your simulation
is incorrect, so Sipser does not apply here.

>

OK you are a liar then.

>
I don't think so.  There is only one liar on this newsgroup, and it's not
Fred.
>

>
*A liar is anyone that denies this*

>
Another display of lack of correct reasoning.
>

>
_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 is correctly emulated by HHH which calls an emulated HHH(DDD) to repeat this process until the emulated DDD is aborted.

>
I proved that HHH cannot possibly correctly simulate itself.

 Liar
https://liarparadox.org/HHH(DDD)_Full_Trace.pdf

Your trace confirms my proof.
The full trace shows that the simulation of the simulator is unable to reach the simulation of the 'ret' of the simulated simulator.
This is further evidence that the ad hominem attack is only used to hide a lack of argumentation.

 

You are unable to show the error in the proof.
If you then repeat 'correctly', who is ignoring the truth?
>