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

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

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.
--
Mikko