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

Am Fri, 19 Jul 2024 09:39:25 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/19/2024 3:51 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-18 13:17:22 +0000, olcott said:

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.
...
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.

 
You apparently mean that no HHHᵢ can simulate the corresponding DDDᵢ to
its termination?

No I don't mean that at all that incorrectly allocates the error to the
emulator.
No DDDᵢ correctly emulated by its corresponding HHHᵢ can possibly reach
past it own machine address 0000216b because each DDDᵢ calls its
corresponding HHHᵢ in recursive emulation.
 

For every finite i the behaviour specified by  DDDᵢ is halting.

Unless DDDᵢ correctly emulated by its corresponding HHHᵢ can reach its
own machine address 00002174 it cannot halt.

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.

The behavour of DDDᵢ depends on what HHHᵢ does. Wheter HHHᵢ is required
to what it does has no evvect on the behaviour of  DDDᵢ.
A pair is never a decider.

One HHH element of the above set of pairs never halts and thus is not a
decider. Every other HHH is a decider.

That would be HHH_oo, which is arguably not a member of that set.

Not one DDD element of the infinite set of every possible HHH/DDD halts,
thus every HHH that halts is correct to reject its input as non-halting.

Of course they do. They all do nothing but call a halting HHH.

How does HHH simulate itself? Why shouldn't that halt, even though both
the simulator and the input are deciders?

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