Re: Liar detector: Peter Olcott --- Ben's agreement

On 7/9/24 10:06 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/9/2024 3:56 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 08.jul.2024 om 19:36 schreef olcott:

On 7/8/2024 11:16 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

You believe that two equals infinity.

>
void Infinite_Loop()
{
   HERE: goto HERE;
}
>
void Infinite_Recursion()
{
   Infinite_Recursion();
}
>
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
}
>
Two cycles is enough to correctly determine that none
of the above functions correctly emulated by HHH can
possibly halt.
>
That you don't see this is ignorance or deception.
>

>
The first two irrelevant examples cannot halt, but they differ fundamentally from DDD, because DDD, like Finite_Recursion, halts after N repetitions.
>

 *I have never explained this issue to Ben this clearly before*
Ben seems to believe that HHH must report that it need not
abort the emulation of DDD because AFTER HHH has already
aborted this emulation DDD does not need to be aborted.
 

Because it does, since this HHH DOES abort its emulation, it turns out that a complete emulation of this input could be done, which is the definition of not needing to abort the emulation.
Remember, you can't change the input when you talk about it, and that includes the copy of the ORIGINAL HHH that it calls. So any "alternate" HHH you want to talk about needs to have a different name and at a different address. That is a limitation of the format you put your program into.