Re: Liar detector: Peter Olcott

On 7/5/24 8:20 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/5/2024 4:49 AM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 03 Jul 2024 13:57:40 -0500 schrieb olcott:

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

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

>

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

But it would stop running.

 Not if not aborted.

But the decider can't abort the program, only its own simulation of it.
You gun isn't good enough to kill the bear, so the bear kills you.

 

>

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 simulates its input DDD until HHH
      determines that its simulated DDD would never stop running unless
      aborted
Richard always lies about this by making sure that he ever sees the word
UNTIL.

>
>