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

Am Mon, 08 Jul 2024 10:24:09 -0500 schrieb olcott:

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:

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.

He is not, but you assume the condition has been met.

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*

No. P(P) IS in fact aborted, so DOES stop running.

Ben thought that H must report on the behavior of D after H aborts its
simulation before it aborts this simulation.

Of course it does. If it would not run forever, it would be wrong to
abort.

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