Path: ...!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 --- Ben's agreement
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2024 10:04:37 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 38
Message-ID: <v6gv65$to0m$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v644pn$29t4h$3@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$4@dont-email.me>
 <v6gss2$t87a$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2024 17:04:38 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8e9286d680ce7523efb7696bf75a6d8f";
	logging-data="974870"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19OCCfrmQaDBrbNK5p5edmS"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:yTYtMl3BcT00F+w1cYO3whBguFA=
In-Reply-To: <v6gss2$t87a$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3383

On 7/8/2024 9:25 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 07.jul.2024 om 15:46 schreef olcott:
>>
>> 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, 

Where correct is understood to be what-ever-the-Hell that the
machine code of DDD specifies within the semantics of the x86
language then:

When DDD is correctly simulated by any pure function x86 emulator
HHH that aborts its emulation at some point calls HHH(DDD) then
it is correctly understood that this call cannot possibly return.
The proof of this is something like mathematical induction.

When DDD is correctly emulated by any HHH that aborts
its emulation after N repetitions:
(1) DDD is correctly emulated by HHH
(2) that calls an emulated HHH(DDD) that
(3) emulates another DDD... goto (2) or abort

Correct is certainly not screwball misconceptions that contradict
the above.

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