Path: ...!news.nobody.at!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 14:30:01 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 128
Message-ID: <v66t7p$2srk8$1@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>
 <v665c9$2oun1$4@dont-email.me> <v66t0p$2n56v$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 21:30:02 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8ec8ab09a9c087279b96ae2505557d8c";
	logging-data="3042952"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18TQ5mlqP3xamHPTpZnu8r5"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:X1hdCehPt2qYOsh+TN4FeUWXSJs=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v66t0p$2n56v$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 7271

On 7/4/2024 2:26 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 04.jul.2024 om 14:42 schreef olcott:
>> 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
> 
> The ad hominem attack is probably meant to hide that you have no more 
> argumentation.
> 
> I showed that HHH cannot possibly correctly simulate itself.

I proved otherwise, Liar.
https://liarparadox.org/HHH(DDD)_Full_Trace.pdf

> For HHH that does not abort, it is clear, because it would simulate 
> infinitely, but does not apply here, because we are talking about HHH 
> that *does* abort.
> For HHH that aborts after N cycles, it is also true, because when the 
> simulating HHH aborts, the simulated HHH has performed N-1 cycles and is 
> only one cycle from its own abort, after which it would return. A 
> correct simulation of HHH by another simulator demonstrates this. The 
> simulating HHH misses this return and therefore the simulation is 
> incorrect.
> 
> This reasoning is supported by the x86 code that olcott often posts 
> here, see above, where even he seems to understand that the simulating 
> HHH cannot reach the 'ret' of the simulated HHH.
> This is supported in even more detail in his 'simulation trace', where 
> we also see that the simulating HHH aborts before the simulated HHH 
> reaches its abort and return.
> Since the simulation is incorrect, also Sipser would agree that it is 
> not possible to conclude that there is a non-halting status.
> 
> Thanks to olcott for so many contributions to support this statement.

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer