Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: joes Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Liar detector: Fred, Richard, Joes and Alan --- Ben's agreement Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2024 15:26:57 -0000 (UTC) Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <2142a7fd912dc3be77be9765a302c93cfc33e6dc@i2pn2.org> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2024 15:26:57 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="2340459"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM"; User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a git.gnome.org/pan2) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Bytes: 5039 Lines: 68 Am Sat, 06 Jul 2024 10:10:06 -0500 schrieb olcott: > On 7/6/2024 10:00 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >> Op 06.jul.2024 om 15:01 schreef olcott: >>> On 7/6/2024 4:09 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>> Op 05.jul.2024 om 17:54 schreef olcott: >>>>> On 7/5/2024 10:48 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>> Op 05.jul.2024 om 16:05 schreef olcott: >>>>>>> On 7/5/2024 8:54 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> HHH cannot possibly correctly simulate itself. >>>>>> Your replies are only irrelevant, or supporting my reasoning. I >>>>>> showed that HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly and your >>>>>> full trace supports this, as it shows that the simulating HHH is >>>>>> unable to reach the 'ret' of the simulated HHH. >>>>>> >>>> Unable to reach ret *is a freaking demonstration* of an incorrect >>>> simulation. >>>> >>> If it was incorrect you would have to show which x86 instruction was >>> simulated incorrectly. You can't do that because it is a matter of >>> verified fact that none of them were simulated incorrectly. You have previously agreed that the direct execution halts. How can a simulation deviate and be correct? > The semantics of the x86 language are the only criterion measure of > correct emulation. Only stupid liars would disagree. Which semantics say that you are allowed to abort a simulation that halts anyway and return that it doesn’t? > Smart liars would not disagree because they would know how stupid this > makes them look. Smart liars would disagree on much more subtle things. People that know their way around notice obvious mistakes. >> Is it really over your head? The simulated instructions are correct, >> but the instructions that are not simulated make the simulation >> incorrect. The simulation is aborted too soon. One cycle later the >> simulated HHH would abort and halt. That part of the input is neglected >> by your simulation, which makes it incorrect, because it should process >> the whole input, not only the first part. This is the right place to respond. >>>> Your traces shows that HHH aborts the simulation at a point there the >>>> simulated HHH has only one cycle to go before it would abort and >>>> halt. >>> >>> All of the HHH have the same code. The outer HHH meets its abort >>> criteria first. It is a verified fact that unless the outer HHH aborts >>> then none of them do. This violates this correct criteria >> >> Incorrect reasoning. >> Dreaming of an HHH that does not abort is irrelevant. This HHH *does* >> abort. The outer one does, so all of them do. Therefore, the HHH >> simulated by the outer one is aborted one cycle before it would abort >> and halt, as well. That makes the abort premature. >> HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly. >>>> So, the only reason why this simulation does not reach the 'ret' of >>>> the simulated HHH, is that it is aborted prematurely. >>>> A correct simulation by another simulator shows that this is indeed >>>> the case. >>> >>> HHH1 can wait for HHH to abort because DDD does not call HHH1. >>> HHH cannot wait because DDD calls HHH. And HHH halts, by definition. -- Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 16:52:17 -0500 schrieb olcott: Objectively I am a genius.