Re: Liar detector: Fred, Richard, Joes and Alan

Op 04.jul.2024 om 14:42 schreef olcott:

On 7/4/2024 2:45 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 03.jul.2024 om 23:02 schreef olcott:

On 7/3/2024 3:55 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 03.jul.2024 om 22:04 schreef olcott:

On 7/3/2024 2:27 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 03.jul.2024 om 21:15 schreef olcott:

On 7/3/2024 2:11 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 03.jul.2024 om 20:57 schreef olcott:

On 7/3/2024 1:40 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 03.jul.2024 om 20:20 schreef olcott:

_DDD()
[00002172] 55               push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec             mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000       push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff       call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404           add esp,+04
[00002182] 5d               pop ebp
[00002183] c3               ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>
DDD correctly emulated by any element of the infinite
set of every pure function HHH cannot possibly reach
its own ret instruction and halt. That HHH aborts its
emulation at some point or never aborts its emulation
cannot possibly change this.
>

>
Ad hominem attacks always try to hide a lack of argumentation.
>
It has been proved that HHH cannot possibly correctly simulate itself.

>
That is false and you know it. That might not be a
flat out lie as it is an sloppy use of language.
>
HHH does correctly simulate itself simulating DDD one time,
then it stops correctly simulating itself because this criteria
is met:
>
     HHH correctly simulates its input DDD until HHH
     correctly determines that its simulated DDD would
     never stop running unless aborted
>
https://liarparadox.org/HHH(DDD)_Full_Trace.pdf
>

So, the above code shows that the incorrect simulation of DDD by HHH is unable to reach the 'ret' instruction, because it either never aborts, or aborts one cycle too soon, when the simulated HHH is only one cycle from its own abort and return and then the return of DDD would follow.
>

The criteria is:
     HHH correctly simulates its input DDD until HHH
     correctly determines that its simulated DDD would
     never stop running unless aborted

>
It has been pointed out many times that this is sloppy use of language.

>
It is the case that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot
possibly reach its own ret instruction NO MATTER WHAT.

>
This proves that HHH is unable to simulate itself.

How the Hell do you think that you can get away with
this when I proved that HHH does correctly emulate itself?
https://liarparadox.org/HHH(DDD)_Full_Trace.pdf
>
But you didn't simulate infinite behavior to the end.
Of course I didn't infinite behavior HAS NO END.

>
Why did do you ask such a strange question?
Your trace shows that you didn't simulate the *finite*

_DDD()
[00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404     add esp,+04
[00002182] 5d         pop ebp
[00002183] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>
When DDD is correctly emulated by HHH neither the
emulated DDD nor the emulated HHH can possibly stop
running unless DDD is aborted.
>
*Endlessly repeats until aborted*
HHH emulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD)
>

>
No contribution to the discussion detected.

Liar

The ad hominem attack is probably meant to hide that you have no more argumentation.
I showed that HHH cannot possibly correctly simulate itself.
For HHH that does not abort, it is clear, because it would simulate infinitely, but does not apply here, because we are talking about HHH that *does* abort.
For HHH that aborts after N cycles, it is also true, because when the simulating HHH aborts, the simulated HHH has performed N-1 cycles and is only one cycle from its own abort, after which it would return. A correct simulation of HHH by another simulator demonstrates this. The simulating HHH misses this return and therefore the simulation is incorrect.
This reasoning is supported by the x86 code that olcott often posts here, see above, where even he seems to understand that the simulating HHH cannot reach the 'ret' of the simulated HHH.
This is supported in even more detail in his 'simulation trace', where we also see that the simulating HHH aborts before the simulated HHH reaches its abort and return.
Since the simulation is incorrect, also Sipser would agree that it is not possible to conclude that there is a non-halting status.
Thanks to olcott for so many contributions to support this statement.