Re: Liar detector: Peter Olcott found lying.

On 7/8/24 11:04 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/8/2024 9:25 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 07.jul.2024 om 15:46 schreef olcott:

>
Correctly is measured by the semantics of the x86 language.
This specifies that when DDD is correctly simulated by HHH
calls emulated HHH(DDD) that this call cannot return.

>
Yes. This shows that the simulation is incorrect.
>

>
You smash a bottle on the ground. No matter how much you
want the bottle to hold water it will not hold water.

>
Similarly, HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly, no matter how much you want it to be correct,

 Where correct is understood to be what-ever-the-Hell that the
machine code of DDD specifies within the semantics of the x86
language then:

Which, since when DDD is run, it will return if HHH returns to main.

 When DDD is correctly simulated by any pure function x86 emulator
HHH that aborts its emulation at some point calls HHH(DDD) then
it is correctly understood that this call cannot possibly return.
The proof of this is something like mathematical induction.
 

But it does, as you have shown, as long as HHH returns to main, it will return to DDD when DDD is run,
You confuse the partial simualition of DDD done by HHH as being the full actual behavior of DDD.

When DDD is correctly emulated by any HHH that aborts
its emulation after N repetitions:
(1) DDD is correctly emulated by HHH
(2) that calls an emulated HHH(DDD) that
(3) emulates another DDD... goto (2) or abort

Which just shows that HHH simulation doesn't reach the end.
NOT that DDD doesn't reach the end.
If EVERY HHH in (3) aborts, then when we look at the actual behavior of DDD we see that the HHH it calls will do EXACTLY THAT SAME THING, and when it finally aborts its simulation of its input, it returns to DDD and DDD will return.

 Correct is certainly not screwball misconceptions that contradict
the above.
 

CORRECT is what DDD does, not what HHH unsoundly predicts it will do based on its partial simulation.
You just don't know the meaning of the words you use, and you don't get to redefine them, as you are using words from the problem, which thus are already defined by it.