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

On 7/5/24 10:13 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/5/2024 9:10 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 05.jul.2024 om 15:04 schreef olcott:

On 7/5/2024 7:29 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 05.jul.2024 om 14:20 schreef 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.

>
If you knew a little bit of programming, you would know that a program that is programmed to abort and stop, will abort and stop, if not aborted.

>
I have two software engineering patents.
HHH is a generic program that works on many different
inputs thus it is not programmed to abort and stop.
It is programmed according to this algorithm.

>
Apparently the algorithm is incorrect, because it does not recognize that the simulation of HHH would reach its end, if not aborted, because the simulated HHH aborts and returns.

 In other words when a bear is running at you to kill you
there is no need to shoot it because you know that you
would shoot it so this is enough, except that the bear
then kills you.

And if all you have is a cap gun, you can't kill it and will die.
Since H can't actually kill the program that it is deciding on, only its simulation of it, it can't "kill the bear", so the bear will kill it.

 

HHH cannot possibly correctly simulate itself.
>

>
Unless you think that the #1 best selling author of theory
of computation textbooks is wrong then I am correct.
>
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
     If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
     until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
     stop running unless aborted then
>
     H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
     specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>

>
You keep repeating irrelevant texts. Sipser agreed to a correct simulation, but I have shown that you simulation is incorrect.
HHH cannot possibly correctly simulate itself.
This is supported by your x86 code, for which you admit that the simulation cannot possibly reach its own 'ret'. Therefore, it is unable to fully process its input.
Additional evidence is in the trace you showed, where we see that, indeed, the simulation does not reach the 'ret' of its simulated self, but aborts prematurely.
>
void Finite_Recursion (int N) {
   if (N > 0) Finite_Recursion (N - 1);
}
>
There is no need to abort this program, even after several recursions.
>

>

Dreaming of a program without abort is irrelevant, because HHH *does* abort.
>

>

>

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 simulates its input DDD until HHH
      determines that its simulated DDD would never stop running unless
      aborted
Richard always lies about this by making sure that he ever sees the word
UNTIL.

>
>

>

>