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

On 7/5/24 8:43 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/5/2024 7:26 AM, joes wrote:

Am Fri, 05 Jul 2024 07:20:04 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/5/2024 4:49 AM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 03 Jul 2024 13:57:40 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/3/2024 1:40 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

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

>

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

But it would stop running.

Not if not aborted.

But it is aborted!
>

 *It is not aborted when HHH makes its decision to abort*
It is a fact that HHH must abort the simulation of its
input to prevent its own infinite execution.

And thus gets the wrong answer about the input.
HHH aborts ITS SIMULATION, not the behavior of the program represented by the input.

 At the point in the execution trace of DDD correctly
emulated by HHH where it knows that it must abort HHH
has correctly determined that DDD is non-halting.

Only in you broken logic, since it can be shown that DDD will halt.
Your problem is you lie to yourself that HHH did a correct emulation of the input, it only did a PARTIAL emulation, so only determined PART of the behavior and incorrectly extrapolated.

 Every time that HHH must abort the emulation of ANY input
to prevent its own infinite execution HHH is always correct
to do this and reject this input as non-halting
 The above is a tautology.
 

Nope, it is a LIE.
Something you are famous for doing.
Just like your claiming a Diagonalization proof that shows Godel wrong existed, and then you said that all Diagonalizations proofs were nonsense.
All you idea are just nonsense (even if some individual statements might have truth, by being mixed up in your nonsense, they become nonsense).