Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Liar detector: Fred, Richard, Joes and Alan
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2024 10:56:40 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <2d9b1245569c262933bc8f67b0d44c5178c19a6c@i2pn2.org>
References: <v644pn$29t4h$3@dont-email.me> <v645v1$29pag$3@dont-email.me>
 <v646v5$2agfo$1@dont-email.me>
 <f01c00463608385b18dba3b5a945f5007e9b3c9e@i2pn2.org>
 <v68odk$39dkv$6@dont-email.me>
 <5c7fd202521f077fd21460b0d7f6a435f9396a62@i2pn2.org>
 <v68pq1$39dkv$9@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2024 14:56:40 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2247596"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v68pq1$39dkv$9@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 3828
Lines: 71

On 7/5/24 8:43 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/5/2024 7:26 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Fri, 05 Jul 2024 07:20:04 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> 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 it is aborted!
>>
> 
> *It is not aborted when HHH makes its decision to abort*
> It is a fact that HHH must abort the simulation of its
> input to prevent its own infinite execution.

And thus gets the wrong answer about the input.

HHH aborts ITS SIMULATION, not the behavior of the program represented 
by the input.

> 
> At the point in the execution trace of DDD correctly
> emulated by HHH where it knows that it must abort HHH
> has correctly determined that DDD is non-halting.

Only in you broken logic, since it can be shown that DDD will halt.

Your problem is you lie to yourself that HHH did a correct emulation of 
the input, it only did a PARTIAL emulation, so only determined PART of 
the behavior and incorrectly extrapolated.

> 
> Every time that HHH must abort the emulation of ANY input
> to prevent its own infinite execution HHH is always correct
> to do this and reject this input as non-halting
> 
> The above is a tautology.
> 
> 

Nope, it is a LIE.

Something you are famous for doing.

Just like your claiming a Diagonalization proof that shows Godel wrong 
existed, and then you said that all Diagonalizations proofs were nonsense.

All you idea are just nonsense (even if some individual statements might 
have truth, by being mixed up in your nonsense, they become nonsense).

> 
>