| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v64drn$29pag$10@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!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 22:55:19 +0200 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 75 Message-ID: <v64drn$29pag$10@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> <v648nk$29pag$8@dont-email.me> <v64as3$2bc8m$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 22:55:20 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6cedb142f34e03a5852de86ea322d5ac"; logging-data="2418000"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+eIh0HAO3bOPi/Yyjn5aud" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:ShWC1vQ/wMDYCyRrolBph3SGeu0= In-Reply-To: <v64as3$2bc8m$1@dont-email.me> Content-Language: en-GB Bytes: 4731 Op 03.jul.2024 om 22:04 schreef olcott: > On 7/3/2024 2:27 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >> 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. > How the Hell do you think that you can get away with > this when I proved that HHH does correctly emulate itself? > https://liarparadox.org/HHH(DDD)_Full_Trace.pdf > > But you didn't simulate infinite behavior to the end. > Of course I didn't infinite behavior HAS NO END. Why did do you ask such a strange question? Your trace shows that you didn't simulate the *finite* behaviour to the end. The simulation of the *finite* recursion was aborted one cycle too soon. A *finite* behaviour HAS AN END. There is no HHH that does not abort, so the simulation of HHH HAS AN END. Dreaming of an HHH that does not abort and has no end is irrelevant. There is no such HHH. So, your proof failed, because of the false assumption that the simulation of HHH, which aborts, has no end.