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 21:27:47 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 73
Message-ID: <v648nk$29pag$8@dont-email.me>
References: <v644pn$29t4h$3@dont-email.me> <v645v1$29pag$3@dont-email.me>
 <v646v5$2agfo$1@dont-email.me> <v647p3$29pag$6@dont-email.me>
 <v6480h$2ape0$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 21:27:49 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6cedb142f34e03a5852de86ea322d5ac";
	logging-data="2418000"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19bjFnMsCMQfbms7PigMEYC"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:TOfEEdX90BQctAZKXP8uqCO8oeM=
In-Reply-To: <v6480h$2ape0$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 4381

Op 03.jul.2024 om 21:15 schreef olcott:
> On 7/3/2024 2:11 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> It is the case that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot
> possibly reach its own ret instruction NO MATTER WHAT.

This proves that HHH is unable to simulate itself.
It also proves that the simulation is not correct, no matter how strong 
your hope it is.

> 
> As soon as HHH sees this it is necessarily correct for HHH
> to reject DDD as non-halting.

Which is incorrect. (And for an incorrect simulation, Sipser does not 
apply.)
The problem is that when HHH aborts its simulation, the aborted HHH is 
only one cycle away from its own abort operation, so that the first 
abort was not required. (The abort is required only when simulating an 
HHH that does not abort, but a HHH that does not abort is only an 
irrelevant dream.) The simulating HHH misses the fact that the simulated 
HHH would abort and return and then DDD would return.
Therefore, the conclusion non-halting is premature.