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

Am Sat, 06 Jul 2024 10:10:06 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/6/2024 10:00 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 06.jul.2024 om 15:01 schreef olcott:

On 7/6/2024 4:09 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 05.jul.2024 om 17:54 schreef olcott:

On 7/5/2024 10:48 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 05.jul.2024 om 16:05 schreef olcott:

On 7/5/2024 8:54 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

>
HHH cannot possibly correctly simulate itself.

Your replies are only irrelevant, or supporting my reasoning. I
showed that HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly and your
full trace supports this, as it shows that the simulating HHH is
unable to reach the 'ret' of the simulated HHH.
>

Unable to reach ret *is a freaking demonstration* of an incorrect
simulation.
>

If it was incorrect you would have to show which x86 instruction was
simulated incorrectly. You can't do that because it is a matter of
verified fact that none of them were simulated incorrectly.

You have previously agreed that the direct execution halts. How can
a simulation deviate and be correct?

The semantics of the x86 language are the only criterion measure of
correct emulation. Only stupid liars would disagree.

Which semantics say that you are allowed to abort a simulation that
halts anyway and return that it doesn’t?

Smart liars would not disagree because they would know how stupid this
makes them look. Smart liars would disagree on much more subtle things.

People that know their way around notice obvious mistakes.

Is it really over your head? The simulated instructions are correct,
but the instructions that are not simulated make the simulation
incorrect. The simulation is aborted too soon. One cycle later the
simulated HHH would abort and halt. That part of the input is neglected
by your simulation, which makes it incorrect, because it should process
the whole input, not only the first part.

This is the right place to respond.

Your traces shows that HHH aborts the simulation at a point there the
simulated HHH has only one cycle to go before it would abort and
halt.

>
All of the HHH have the same code. The outer HHH meets its abort
criteria first. It is a verified fact that unless the outer HHH aborts
then none of them do. This violates this correct criteria

 
Incorrect reasoning.
Dreaming of an HHH that does not abort is irrelevant. This HHH *does*
abort. The outer one does, so all of them do. Therefore, the HHH
simulated by the outer one is aborted one cycle before it would abort
and halt, as well. That makes the abort premature.
HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly.

So, the only reason why this simulation does not reach the 'ret' of
the simulated HHH, is that it is aborted prematurely.
A correct simulation by another simulator shows that this is indeed
the case.

>
HHH1 can wait for HHH to abort because DDD does not call HHH1.
HHH cannot wait because DDD calls HHH.

And HHH halts, by definition.

--
Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 16:52:17 -0500 schrieb olcott:
Objectively I am a genius.