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 22:04:32 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 145
Message-ID: <v66v8i$2n56v$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>
 <v665c9$2oun1$4@dont-email.me> <v66t0p$2n56v$1@dont-email.me>
 <v66t7p$2srk8$1@dont-email.me> <v66tql$2n56v$3@dont-email.me>
 <v66u56$2suut$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 22:04:35 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1c392df7964de9efb92f1d6ee392be3b";
	logging-data="2856159"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18jTlJEAOxCJsE1E6zqblDp"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:KPwRcvOFqolyZL9P9SvJzKWa4Js=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <v66u56$2suut$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 8217

Op 04.jul.2024 om 21:45 schreef olcott:
> On 7/4/2024 2:40 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> 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 
> 
> HHH is simulating itself simulating DDD until it sees
> that DDD is calling HHH in recursive simulation such
> that neither the simulated DDD nor the simulated HHH
> can possibly stop running unless HHH aborts its DDD.

The 'unless HHH aborts ...' is irrelevant and misleading, because we 
know HHH *does* aborts. Dreaming of an HHH that does not abort is 
irrelevant.
HHH is programmed to abort, so it is nonsense that it cannot possibly 
stop running. It is programmed to stop after N cycles of recursive 
simulation by aborting its simulation.
An aborting simulator does not need to be aborted, not even when it is 
simulated.

void Finite_Recursion (int N) {
   if (N > 0) Finite_Recursion (N - 1);
}

HHH is simulating itself. It sees a N nested recursions and aborts.
It does not see that one cycle later, the simulated HHH would also abort 
and return. So, it misses an important part of the input, which makes 
the simulation incorrect.

Your x86 code and your simulation trace is evidence that this is true 
for people who understand x86 code. The simulating HHH cannot possible 
reach the 'ret' of the simulated HHH. The x86 code when not aborted, 
would reach the 'ret' of the simulated HHH.
Therefore, the simulation of HHH by itself cannot possibly be correct.

> 
> This may be you last chance before I ignore everything
> that you say and write you off as a liar.
> 
We know that you do not have the competence to recognize the truth, so I 
do not feel offended.