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

On 7/8/2024 10:08 AM, joes wrote:

Am Mon, 08 Jul 2024 10:04:37 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/8/2024 9:25 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 07.jul.2024 om 15:46 schreef olcott:

>
Correctly is measured by the semantics of the x86 language.
This specifies that when DDD is correctly simulated by HHH calls
emulated HHH(DDD) that this call cannot return.

Yes. This shows that the simulation is incorrect.

 

Similarly, HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly, no matter how
much you want it to be correct,

Where correct is understood to be what-ever-the-Hell that the machine
code of DDD specifies within the semantics of the x86 language then:

 

_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]

When DDD is correctly simulated by any pure function x86 emulator HHH
that aborts its emulation at some point calls HHH(DDD) then it is
correctly understood that this call cannot possibly return.

An aborted simulation is not correct.
 

It turns out the the #1 best selling author of theory of computation textbooks is not wrong when he agreed with my verbatim words.
https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation-Michael-Sipser/dp/113318779X <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>
On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
 > I don't think that is the shell game.  PO really /has/ an H (it's
 > trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines that P(P)
 > *would* never stop running *unless* aborted.
...
 > But H determines (correctly) that D would not halt if it were not
 > halted.  That much is a truism.
*Proves that Ben agreed that the criteria has been met*

Correct is certainly not screwball misconceptions that contradict the
above.

 

Ben failed to understand that professor Sipser was correct
about what meeting the criteria entails.
Ben thought that H must report on the behavior of D after
H aborts its simulation before it aborts this simulation.
This is analogous to needing groceries and saying that you
do not need groceries before you get more groceries.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer