Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Liar detector: Fred, Richard, Joes and Alan
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2024 07:42:49 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 96
Message-ID: <v665c9$2oun1$4@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> <v65juc$2lui5$2@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 14:42:49 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8ec8ab09a9c087279b96ae2505557d8c";
	logging-data="2915041"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+TebD9RNWsbv4qfUEqKA4b"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:OcWMwsM1syTdraBGDFbsff5r91Q=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v65juc$2lui5$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5604

On 7/4/2024 2:45 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> 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. 
Liar
-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer