Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Liar detector: Fred, Richard, Joes and Alan --- Ben's agreement
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2024 18:27:27 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <60a1c2490e9bd9a5478fd173a20ed64d5eb158f9@i2pn2.org>
References: <v644pn$29t4h$3@dont-email.me> <v66u56$2suut$1@dont-email.me>
	<v66v8i$2n56v$4@dont-email.me> <v67028$2t9el$1@dont-email.me>
	<v68b3f$2n56v$5@dont-email.me> <v68ocd$39dkv$5@dont-email.me>
	<v68pfo$2n56v$7@dont-email.me> <v68rnv$39tml$2@dont-email.me>
	<v68tvd$3ac9t$1@dont-email.me> <v68uj0$3ahel$1@dont-email.me>
	<v694k4$3bevk$1@dont-email.me> <v69502$3bh3f$1@dont-email.me>
	<v6b1k4$3odj5$1@dont-email.me> <v6bf7r$3qiio$2@dont-email.me>
	<v6bm5v$3rj8n$1@dont-email.me> <v6bmoe$3ri0l$2@dont-email.me>
	<v6bnt2$3rj8n$3@dont-email.me> <v6brfj$3skuk$2@dont-email.me>
	<v6c3vh$3ttem$1@dont-email.me> <v6c539$3u2mj$1@dont-email.me>
	<v6dda0$7s8u$1@dont-email.me> <v6e67v$bbcb$4@dont-email.me>
	<v6gss2$t87a$1@dont-email.me> <v6gv65$to0m$1@dont-email.me>
	<v6h2li$ud7p$1@dont-email.me> <v6h2rm$ue7s$1@dont-email.me>
	<v6h3cu$ud7p$2@dont-email.me> <v6h83q$vag9$1@dont-email.me>
	<v6ikgb$19f5g$1@dont-email.me> <v6jgjo$1ctoi$4@dont-email.me>
	<v6lckp$1qi9e$1@dont-email.me> <v6m2qq$1tj30$6@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2024 18:27:27 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2822467"; 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: 4176
Lines: 69

Am Wed, 10 Jul 2024 08:37:30 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 7/10/2024 2:18 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-07-09 14:14:16 +0000, olcott said:
>>> On 7/9/2024 1:14 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-07-08 17:36:58 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>> On 7/8/2024 11:16 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 08.jul.2024 om 18:07 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Try to show how infinity is one cycle too soon.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> You believe that two equals infinity.
>>>>>
>>>>> void Infinite_Loop()
>>>>> {
>>>>>    HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>> }
>>>>> void Infinite_Recursion()
>>>>> {
>>>>>    Infinite_Recursion();
>>>>> }
>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>> {
>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>> }
>>>>> Two cycles is enough to correctly determine that none of the above
>>>>> functions correctly emulated by HHH can possibly halt.
>>>>> That you don't see this is ignorance or deception.
>>>>
>>>> There is an important detail that determines whether an infinite
>>>> execution can be inferred. That is best illustrated by the following
>>>> examples:
>>>> void Finite_Loop()
>>>> {
>>>>   int x = 10000;
>>>> HERE:
>>>>   if (x > 0) {
>>>>     x--;
>>>>     goto HERE;
>>>>   }
>>>> }
>>>> void Finite_Recursion(int n)
>>>> {
>>>>   if (n > 0) {
>>>>     Finite_Recursion(n + 1);
>>>>   }
>>>> }
>>>> void DDD()
>>>> {
>>>>   HHH(DDD); // HHH detects recursive simulation and then simulates
>>>>   no more }
>>>> The important difference is that in my examples there is a
>>>> conditional instruction that can (and does) prevent infinite
>>>> exectuion.
>>>>
>>> When we ask:
>>> Does the call from DDD emulated by HHH to HHH(DDD) return?
>> 
>> Why would anyone ask that? A question should make clear its topic.
>> Instead one could ask whether HHH can fully emulate DDD if that is what
>> one wants to know. Or one may think that HHH and DDD are so
>> unimteresting that there is no point to ask anyting about them.
>> 
> A correct emulator can correctly any correct x86 instructions.
> When it emulates non-halting code then itself does not halt.
Oh? Maybe you should give your simulator and decider different names
so they don't get confused. Does HHH abort or not?

-- 
Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 16:52:17 -0500 schrieb olcott:
Objectively I am a genius.