Re: Liar detector: Peter Olcott --- Ben's agreement

On 7/13/24 8:07 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/13/2024 2:48 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-12 13:07:13 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 7/12/2024 2:49 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-11 14:40:50 +0000, olcott said:

>
It is a hierarchy of prerequisites of knowledge.
Before anyone can understand a simulating termination
analyzer based on an x86 emulator they must understand
(1) x86 emulation
(2) Termination Analysis.

>
The order should be:
(1) termination analysis and termination analyzer,
(2) simulating termination analyzer,
(3) x86,
(4) x86 emulation,
(5) simulating termination analyzer based on an x86 emulator.
>

>
*That order has proven to not work*
People are getting stuck on x86 emulation.

>
In that case it is likely that no order that contains x86 emulation at
any point will not work.
>

 I explained x86 emulation in terms of a C language interpreter
and the one detail of the x86 language that must be understood
(the function calling convention) so that C programmers can
understand the first half of my paper.
 Simulating Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Simulating_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
 All of the rebuttals of my work remain anchored in disagreeing
with the x86 language, they have no other basis.
 

NO, they are anchored in showing your misunderstand of the x86 language.

*This proves that every rebuttal is wrong somewhere*
No DDD instance of each HHH/DDD pair of the infinite set of
every HHH/DDD pair ever reaches past its own machine address of
0000216b and halts thus proving that every HHH is correct to
reject its input DDD as non-halting.
 

Then why does EVERY DDD, based on an HHH(DDD) that returns, which is EVERY HHH that ever decides to aborts its emulation and return 0, when you actually look at the FULL execution sequence DEFINED BY THE x86 language (which never says to stop the sequence until you get to a terminal instruction) end up at that address?
The DDD reaches there, what doesn't is the PARTIAL (and thus not fully correct) emulation of it by HHH.
You just don't know the difference between reality (what actually happens) and the PARTIAL observation of that reality by HHH.
This just shows your utter ignorance of Truth and Logic, and the limitations cause by your corrupted mental model that tries to limit Truth to what is known instead of what actually is.