Path: ...!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 --- Ben's agreement
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2024 16:25:05 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 91
Message-ID: <v6gss2$t87a$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v644pn$29t4h$3@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> <v66v8i$2n56v$4@dont-email.me>
 <v67028$2t9el$1@dont-email.me> <v68b3f$2n56v$5@dont-email.me>
 <v68ocd$39dkv$5@dont-email.me> <v68pfo$2n56v$7@dont-email.me>
 <v68rnv$39tml$2@dont-email.me> <v68tvd$3ac9t$1@dont-email.me>
 <v68uj0$3ahel$1@dont-email.me> <v694k4$3bevk$1@dont-email.me>
 <v69502$3bh3f$1@dont-email.me> <v6b1k4$3odj5$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6bf7r$3qiio$2@dont-email.me> <v6bm5v$3rj8n$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6bmoe$3ri0l$2@dont-email.me> <v6bnt2$3rj8n$3@dont-email.me>
 <v6brfj$3skuk$2@dont-email.me> <v6c3vh$3ttem$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6c539$3u2mj$1@dont-email.me> <v6dda0$7s8u$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6e67v$bbcb$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2024 16:25:07 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4cd15f8f440cd01ac2e0bac4ce6ae2fc";
	logging-data="958698"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+BQ1gvYcUKAa2BARln6r9p"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:schJ0oUiGH7KGds7S+LQ+6jvuYI=
In-Reply-To: <v6e67v$bbcb$4@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 6396

Op 07.jul.2024 om 15:46 schreef olcott:
> On 7/7/2024 1:41 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 06.jul.2024 om 21:14 schreef olcott:
>>> On 7/6/2024 1:55 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 06.jul.2024 om 18:30 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 7/6/2024 10:29 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, why do you disagree that the x86 code specifies an HHH that 
>>>>>> aborts and halts? 
>>>>>
>>>>> Dishonest dodge of changing the subject. This is called
>>>>> the strawman deception and is a favorite tactic of liars.
>>>>
>>>> Irrelevant text ignored. You talked about x86, therefore continuing 
>>>> to talk about x86 is not a change of subject.
>>>> I know you have difficulties to recognize the truth, so I do not 
>>>> feel offended, because: 'Don't assume somebody is wilfully wrong, if 
>>>> incompetence could be an explanation, as well.'
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If you sufficiently understand the semantics of the x86
>>>>> language then you can see that the call to HHH(DDD) from
>>>>> DDD simulated according to the semantics of the x86 language
>>>>> cannot possibly return.
>>>>
>>>> I understand enough of it to see that it cannot possibly return, 
>>>> because HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly.
>>>
>>> According to the semantics of the x86 language IS IS IMPOSSIBLE
>>> FOR DDD SIMULATED BY HHH TO RETURN AND IT IS EQUALLY IMPOSSIBLE
>>> FOR THE HHH(DDD) CALLED BY DDD SIMULATED BY HHH TO RETURN.
>>
>> Therefore, you should agree that HHH cannot possibly simulate itself 
>> correctly. 
> 
> Correctly is measured by the semantics of the x86 language.
> This specifies that when DDD is correctly simulated by HHH
> calls emulated HHH(DDD) that this call cannot return.

Yes. This shows that the simulation is incorrect.

> 
> You smash a bottle on the ground. No matter how much you
> want the bottle to hold water it will not hold water.

Similarly, HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly, no matter how 
much you want it to be correct, it is incorrect. It always aborts too 
soon and therefore misses the fact that the simulated HHH is one cycle 
away from its abort and return.
That is supported by the fact that you admit that the simulation cannot 
reach the return. That makes it incorrect! The x86 language specifies no 
abort. In fact the hardware simulator of the x86 code (the processor of 
your computer), shows that the correct simulation reaches the return.
Also other simulators correctly show that HHH will return. Only HHH 
itself in unable to simulate itself correctly.

> 
>> That is what the semantics of the x86 teach you.
>> There is no disagreement about the semantics of the x86, if you see 
>> that it means that HHH cannot possibly reach its own 'ret' 
>> instruction, therefore, the simulation cannot possibly be correct.
>>
> A correct simulation is what-so-ever-the Hell that the x86
> machine code of HHH/DDD specifies even if this code starts
> WW III. Correct is not measured by what you would like to
> see or what you expect to happen. Correct is only measured
> by the behavior that the code specifies.
> 
> When I say that 2 + 3 = 5 you are not free to dislike this
> result and prefer or expect 2 + 3 = 7.

But you seem to reason like that. The simulation is incorrect, but you 
prefer it to be correct. It is just as wrong.
The x86 doe not specify an abort. If the simulation of HHH is not 
aborted, HHH will abort and return. That is shown by several simulators.
Only HHH itself cannot possibly simulate itself correctly. That is true, 
no matter how much you want it otherwise.
Repeating how you wish it to be, does not help. Repeating 2 + 3 = 7 a 
hundred times does not make it true. Similarly, repeating that the 
simulation is correct does not make it true.

The problem seems to be that you think you are infallible. So, you don't 
think about what we say, you just ignore it, because you think you 
cannot make an error. Then you repeat your claim without any evidence or 
proof. You seem to think that everything you wish is true. If you want 
the simulation to be correct, than it must be correct, without any 
evidence. If, not than you simply redefine the meaning of correct.

You even quote other people, like Sipser, as a support, even although 
they know that your simulation is incorrect, and therefore they do not 
agree with you.