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 --- Ben's agreement
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2024 22:51:40 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <b41a3dfce421d48635e133a0ef8824fc438dde36@i2pn2.org>
References: <v644pn$29t4h$3@dont-email.me> <v66t7p$2srk8$1@dont-email.me>
 <v66tql$2n56v$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>
 <v6iu0s$1acpg$1@dont-email.me> <v6jg5j$1ctoi$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2024 02:51:40 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2743986"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v6jg5j$1ctoi$3@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3465
Lines: 47

On 7/9/24 10:06 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/9/2024 3:56 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 08.jul.2024 om 19:36 schreef olcott:
>>> On 7/8/2024 11:16 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> The first two irrelevant examples cannot halt, but they differ 
>> fundamentally from DDD, because DDD, like Finite_Recursion, halts 
>> after N repetitions.
>>
> 
> *I have never explained this issue to Ben this clearly before*
> Ben seems to believe that HHH must report that it need not
> abort the emulation of DDD because AFTER HHH has already
> aborted this emulation DDD does not need to be aborted.
> 

Because it does, since this HHH DOES abort its emulation, it turns out 
that a complete emulation of this input could be done, which is the 
definition of not needing to abort the emulation.

Remember, you can't change the input when you talk about it, and that 
includes the copy of the ORIGINAL HHH that it calls. So any "alternate" 
HHH you want to talk about needs to have a different name and at a 
different address. That is a limitation of the format you put your 
program into.