Re: Liar detector: Peter Olcott

On 7/18/24 9:17 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/18/2024 2:40 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-17 13:00:55 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 7/17/2024 1:43 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-16 14:21:28 +0000, olcott said:

>
When simulated input DDD stops running {if and only if}
the simulation of this input DDD has been aborted this
necessitates that input DDD specifies non-halting behavior

>
DDD does not stop runnig unless it is completely exeuted.

>
_DDD()
[00002163] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002164] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002166] 6863210000 push 00002163 ; push DDD
[0000216b] e853f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DDD)
[00002170] 83c404     add esp,+04
[00002173] 5d         pop ebp
[00002174] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002174]
>
DDD emulated by HHH according to the semantic meaning of
its x86 instructions never stop running unless aborted.

>
You mean HHH's simulation of DDD may not termite before HHH aborts it?

 When we examine the infinite set of every HHH/DDD pair such that:
HHH₁ one step of DDD₁ is correctly emulated by HHH₁.
HHH₂ two steps of DDD₂ are correctly emulated by HHH₂.
HHH₃ three steps of DDD₃ are correctly emulated by HHH₃.
...

And all those are PARTIAL emulaiton of PART of the input give to them.
In fact, once you get to five, by your rules, HHH can't do it, as there is no instrucition in the input to emulate.

HHH∞ The emulation of DDD∞ by HHH∞ never stops running.
 When each DDD of the HHH/DDD pairs above is correctly emulated
by its corresponding HHH according to the semantic meaning of its
x86 instructions it CANNOT POSSIBLY reach past its own machine
address 0000216b, not even by an act of God.

Nope, Its EMULATION doesn't get there, but the program (when you include the HHH that it calls that you seem to allow for the emulaiton) will get there.
You just think that emulator is God, which it isn't, the "God" of the cmmputer is the idealized CPU would run the program, and that can't be stoppoed by a mere program, and runs to the end.

 

The behaviour specified by DDD, both by C semantics and by x86 semantics,
is halting if HHH returns. Otherwise HHH is not a decider.
>

 When HHH is required to be a pure function then only one element
of the above infinite set of every possible HHH/DDD is not a decider.
 

Right, and all of those deciders get the wrong answer, because the programmer lied about what HHH that DDD the decider was given. Since they were all given DDDs that called an HHH that returns, but the programmer LIED by claiming it is calling the HHH that was not a decider even though that isn't the one in the memory at the tie.
LYIHG gives wrong answers.