Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Liar detector: Peter Olcott (self-admitted)
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2024 11:25:10 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <27f9a980e7d8ee45b7e3cad744da8c805f8cc080@i2pn2.org>
References: <v644pn$29t4h$3@dont-email.me> <v645v1$29pag$3@dont-email.me>
 <v646v5$2agfo$1@dont-email.me> <v647p3$29pag$6@dont-email.me>
 <v6480h$2ape0$1@dont-email.me> <v648nk$29pag$8@dont-email.me>
 <v64as3$2bc8m$1@dont-email.me> <v64drn$29pag$10@dont-email.me>
 <v64e92$2bvgc$1@dont-email.me> <v65juc$2lui5$2@dont-email.me>
 <v665c9$2oun1$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2024 15:25:10 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2132707"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v665c9$2oun1$4@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5631
Lines: 97

On 7/4/24 8:42 AM, olcott wrote:
> 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

Nice signaturd of who you are.

Apparently, you have run out of idea of how to rephrase your lies, so 
you just fall back to name calling.