Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Liar detector: Fred, Richard, Joes and Alan --- Ben's agreement
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2024 09:16:34 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 98
Message-ID: <v6opg3$2fuva$6@dont-email.me>
References: <v644pn$29t4h$3@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$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6gv65$to0m$1@dont-email.me> <v6h2li$ud7p$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6h2rm$ue7s$1@dont-email.me> <v6h3cu$ud7p$2@dont-email.me>
 <v6h83q$vag9$1@dont-email.me> <v6ikgb$19f5g$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6jgjo$1ctoi$4@dont-email.me> <v6lckp$1qi9e$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6m2qq$1tj30$6@dont-email.me> <v6nvc8$2blka$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2024 16:16:35 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="cb7a71f238b6f1f0fff1b8b0208457d0";
	logging-data="2620394"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18CAF7xFNyzBTECueZhHOOw"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:+RsdCZYowvQP6zRBpnpW4eaVoIY=
In-Reply-To: <v6nvc8$2blka$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5002

On 7/11/2024 1:50 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-07-10 13:37:30 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 7/10/2024 2:18 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-07-09 14:14:16 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 7/9/2024 1:14 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-07-08 17:36:58 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 7/8/2024 11:16 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>> Op 08.jul.2024 om 18:07 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Try to show how infinity is one cycle too soon.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You believe that two equals infinity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> void Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>> {
>>>>>>    HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> void Infinite_Recursion()
>>>>>> {
>>>>>>    Infinite_Recursion();
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>> {
>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Two cycles is enough to correctly determine that none
>>>>>> of the above functions correctly emulated by HHH can
>>>>>> possibly halt.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That you don't see this is ignorance or deception.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is an important detail that determines whether an infinite
>>>>> execution can be inferred. That is best illustrated by the following
>>>>> examples:
>>>>>
>>>>> void Finite_Loop()
>>>>> {
>>>>>   int x = 10000;
>>>>> HERE:
>>>>>   if (x > 0) {
>>>>>     x--;
>>>>>     goto HERE;
>>>>>   }
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> void Finite_Recursion(int n)
>>>>> {
>>>>>   if (n > 0) {
>>>>>     Finite_Recursion(n + 1);
>>>>>   }
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>> {
>>>>>   HHH(DDD); // HHH detects recursive simulation and then simulates 
>>>>> no more
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> The important difference is that in my examples there is a conditional
>>>>> instruction that can (and does) prevent infinite exectuion.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When we ask:
>>>> Does the call from DDD emulated by HHH to HHH(DDD) return?
>>>
>>> Why would anyone ask that? A question should make clear its topic.
>>> Instead one could ask whether HHH can fully emulate DDD if that is
>>> what one wants to know. Or one may think that HHH and DDD are so
>>> unimteresting that there is no point to ask anyting about them.
>>
>> A correct emulator can correctly any correct x86 instructions.
>> When it emulates non-halting code then itself does not halt.
> 
> Not quite right but should be easy to fix. There should be a verb before 
> "any",
> for example "execute". Of course there still is a probelm with the meaning
> "any correct x86 instructions". Intel may publish a new x86 processor 
> that has
> instructios that the emulator cannot know but are nevertheless correct x86
> instructions because Intel says so. In the second sentence "it" should 
> be used
> istead of "itself".
> 

Intel has already done this and they call this x64.
A 1907 Model-T Ford cannot have upgrades and still
be a 1907 model-T Ford. Likewise for the x86 language.

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