Path: ...!news.mixmin.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: Thu, 4 Jul 2024 09:45:15 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 106
Message-ID: <v65juc$2lui5$2@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> <v64drn$29pag$10@dont-email.me>
 <v64e92$2bvgc$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2024 09:45:16 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1c392df7964de9efb92f1d6ee392be3b";
	logging-data="2816581"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/zgHH3g+sz00dMn8o9UDBs"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:gfkSzRy9uzsX0/8Xrg54FkB8e1I=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <v64e92$2bvgc$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 6175

Op 03.jul.2024 om 23:02 schreef olcott:
> On 7/3/2024 3:55 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> 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* 
> _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]
> 
> When DDD is correctly emulated by HHH neither the
> emulated DDD nor the emulated HHH can possibly stop
> running unless DDD is aborted.
> 
> *Endlessly repeats until aborted*
> HHH emulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD)
> 

No contribution to the discussion detected. Only a repetition of a false 
claim and self-contradictory sentences.
"Endlessly repeats untill aborted." Make up your mind. Is is endless, or 
is it aborted? An aborted simulation is not endless. In particular when 
the simulation is aborted when it is only one cycle before its end.

I proved already HHH cannot possibly correctly simulate itself, 
therefore the set of HHH that correctly simulate itself is empty. 
Therefore, "When DDD correctly emulated by HHH ..." is referring to an 
empty set of HHH, because DDD contains HHH.

Your infinite/endless recursion is your dream of an HHH that does not 
abort, but that is irrelevant, since such an HHH is not in this program.
The HHH that is in this program is programmed to abort.
Just as Sipser agreed, only a correct simulation can show termination 
behaviour, not an incorrect simulation of a *finite* recursion based on 
a dream of an infinite recursion.