Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<f87dff7897c69b00642fe8340335620eaa59e6b4@i2pn2.org> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
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,sci.logic Subject: Re: Liar detector: Fred, Richard, Joes and Alan --- Ben's agreement Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2024 15:50:54 -0000 (UTC) Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <f87dff7897c69b00642fe8340335620eaa59e6b4@i2pn2.org> References: <v644pn$29t4h$3@dont-email.me> <v65juc$2lui5$2@dont-email.me> <v665c9$2oun1$4@dont-email.me> <v66t0p$2n56v$1@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$1@dont-email.me> <6dc1845ddaf0e8145d02ff73dfbe3507fe389d58@i2pn2.org> <v6h0ap$tusl$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2024 15:50:54 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="2560098"; 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: 3341 Lines: 31 Am Mon, 08 Jul 2024 10:24:09 -0500 schrieb olcott: > On 7/8/2024 10:08 AM, joes wrote: >> Am Mon, 08 Jul 2024 10:04:37 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>> On 7/8/2024 9:25 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>> Op 07.jul.2024 om 15:46 schreef olcott: >>> When DDD is correctly simulated by any pure function x86 emulator HHH >>> that aborts its emulation at some point calls HHH(DDD) then it is >>> correctly understood that this call cannot possibly return. >> An aborted simulation is not correct. > It turns out the the #1 best selling author of theory of computation > textbooks is not wrong when he agreed with my verbatim words. He is not, but you assume the condition has been met. > On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > > I don't think that is the shell game. PO really /has/ an H (it's > > trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines that P(P) > > *would* never stop running *unless* aborted. > ... > > But H determines (correctly) that D would not halt if it were not > > halted. That much is a truism. > *Proves that Ben agreed that the criteria has been met* No. P(P) IS in fact aborted, so DOES stop running. > Ben thought that H must report on the behavior of D after H aborts its > simulation before it aborts this simulation. Of course it does. If it would not run forever, it would be wrong to abort. -- Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 16:52:17 -0500 schrieb olcott: Objectively I am a genius.