Re: Liar detector: Fred, Richard, Joes and Alan

Liste des GroupesRevenir à theory 
Sujet : Re: Liar detector: Fred, Richard, Joes and Alan
De : F.Zwarts (at) *nospam* HetNet.nl (Fred. Zwarts)
Groupes : comp.theory sci.logic
Date : 03. Jul 2024, 21:27:47
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v648nk$29pag$8@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
Op 03.jul.2024 om 21:15 schreef olcott:
On 7/3/2024 2:11 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 03.jul.2024 om 20:57 schreef olcott:
On 7/3/2024 1:40 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 03.jul.2024 om 20:20 schreef olcott:
_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.
>
>
Ad hominem attacks always try to hide a lack of argumentation.
>
It has been proved that HHH cannot possibly correctly simulate itself.
>
That is false and you know it. That might not be a
flat out lie as it is an sloppy use of language.
>
HHH does correctly simulate itself simulating DDD one time,
then it stops correctly simulating itself because this criteria
is met:
>
     HHH correctly simulates its input DDD until HHH
     correctly determines that its simulated DDD would
     never stop running unless aborted
>
https://liarparadox.org/HHH(DDD)_Full_Trace.pdf
>
So, the above code shows that the incorrect simulation of DDD by HHH is unable to reach the 'ret' instruction, because it either never aborts, or aborts one cycle too soon, when the simulated HHH is only one cycle from its own abort and return and then the return of DDD would follow.
>
The criteria is:
     HHH correctly simulates its input DDD until HHH
     correctly determines that its simulated DDD would
     never stop running unless aborted
>
It has been pointed out many times that this is sloppy use of language.
 It is the case that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot
possibly reach its own ret instruction NO MATTER WHAT.
This proves that HHH is unable to simulate itself.
It also proves that the simulation is not correct, no matter how strong your hope it is.

 As soon as HHH sees this it is necessarily correct for HHH
to reject DDD as non-halting.
Which is incorrect. (And for an incorrect simulation, Sipser does not apply.)
The problem is that when HHH aborts its simulation, the aborted HHH is only one cycle away from its own abort operation, so that the first abort was not required. (The abort is required only when simulating an HHH that does not abort, but a HHH that does not abort is only an irrelevant dream.) The simulating HHH misses the fact that the simulated HHH would abort and return and then DDD would return.
Therefore, the conclusion non-halting is premature.

Date Sujet#  Auteur
10 Nov 24 o 

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal