Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Liar detector: Fred, Richard, Joes and Alan
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2024 21:11:30 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 63
Message-ID: <v647p3$29pag$6@dont-email.me>
References: <v644pn$29t4h$3@dont-email.me> <v645v1$29pag$3@dont-email.me>
 <v646v5$2agfo$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2024 21:11:32 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6cedb142f34e03a5852de86ea322d5ac";
	logging-data="2418000"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+faSsD6EtAWZKsWiVda7yo"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:mFUzh68rAvIw66h/MCO6BnBgx/U=
In-Reply-To: <v646v5$2agfo$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 4030

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.
HHH *does* abort, so the 'unless aborted' does not make sense.
Since HHH *does* abort, its simulation does not need to be aborted (as a 
correct simulation by another simulator shows).
HHH is incorrect when it determines that the simulation of an aborting 
self would never stop. If not aborted, the simulated HHH would abort, 
because that is how it is programmed. But the simulating HHH does not 
see that, because it aborts one cycle too soon.
The reason is that a simulator cannot possible correctly simulate itself.
I hope you finally see it.
The wording 'would never stop running unless aborted' suggests that 
there is a possibility that the simulated HHH would not abort, but that 
is just an irrelevant dream, because this HHH is programmed to abort and 
there is no other HHH in this simulation.