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

Op 13.Jul.2024 OM 14:28 screech Fred. Warts:

Op 13.jul.2024 om 14:15 schreef olcott:

On 7/13/2024 2:48 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-12 13:07:13 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 7/12/2024 2:49 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-11 14:40:50 +0000, olcott said:

>
It is a hierarchy of prerequisites of knowledge.
Before anyone can understand a simulating termination
analyzer based on an x86 emulator they must understand
(1) x86 emulation
(2) Termination Analysis.

>
The order should be:
(1) termination analysis and termination analyzer,
(2) simulating termination analyzer,
(3) x86,
(4) x86 emulation,
(5) simulating termination analyzer based on an x86 emulator.
>

>
*That order has proven to not work*
People are getting stuck on x86 emulation.

>
In that case it is likely that no order that contains x86 emulation at
any point will not work.
>

>
The issue with this is that people believe that they
can disagree with the x86 language. That is the same
as disagreeing with arithmetic, not allowed.
>

 The real issue is that olcott thinks he can change the semantics of the x86 language at will. He thinks that the behaviour of a program does not change if it is halted halfway its execution. Therefore, he does not understand that when the simulation of a halting program is aborted before it reaches its end, it is still a correct simulation according to the semantics of the x86 language.
 

before it reaches its end, it is an incorrect simulation according to the semantics of the x86 language.