| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v66tql$2n56v$3@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
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: "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 21:40:04 +0200 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 133 Message-ID: <v66tql$2n56v$3@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> <v66t7p$2srk8$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 21:40:07 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1c392df7964de9efb92f1d6ee392be3b"; logging-data="2856159"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/y3bRQRGRuxGyb6r5SwP/N" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:zfXfTmGhmXFmk4MHx020RRrsvBY= Content-Language: en-GB In-Reply-To: <v66t7p$2srk8$1@dont-email.me> Bytes: 7789 Op 04.jul.2024 om 21:30 schreef olcott: > 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 No, this trace supports my claim. When we look at this trace we see that the simulating HHH is unable to reach the 'ret' of the simulated HHH. The simulating HHH aborts one cycle before the simulated HHH would abort and return. The simulating HHH misses this last part of the simulation and, therefore, the simulation is incorrect. Thanks for the trace. It supports my claim. > >> 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. >