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

On 7/13/24 8:15 AM, olcott wrote:

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.
 

No, you think that the x86 language allows a partial emulation to be considered a correct emulation of the whole program instead of just a partial emulation of it.
You also don't seem to understand that changing the code being emulated (that is the unlisted HHH, that must be part of the emulated code) changes the behavior of the emulation and of the actual program.
Behavior isn't really defined for your "infinite set" of HHH/DDD, it is defined for each individual HHH/DDD pair, and all of the DDD that use an HHH that return, will themselves return even though their HHH aborts its emulation of that DDD before it gets there.