Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Liar detector: Fred, Richard, Joes and Alan --- Ben's agreement
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2024 10:43:09 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 49
Message-ID: <v6vvid$24jd$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v644pn$29t4h$3@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> <60a1c2490e9bd9a5478fd173a20ed64d5eb158f9@i2pn2.org> <v6nvn8$2bn6q$1@dont-email.me> <v6oqti$2fuva$7@dont-email.me> <v6qn6k$2ubkt$1@dont-email.me> <v6r9q1$30qtt$5@dont-email.me> <v6tbge$3gegs$1@dont-email.me> <v6tqlm$3imib$5@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2024 09:43:10 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9a92efa79bf89cf93bddcd1bb941165c";
	logging-data="70253"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19yrRNjjAvcJ1hi8WZvhZku"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:oGfXR3p2fhrA86lhmhGQ6IW89EY=
Bytes: 3670

On 2024-07-13 12:07:18 +0000, olcott said:

> On 7/13/2024 2:48 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-07-12 13:07:13 +0000, olcott said:
>> 
>>> On 7/12/2024 2:49 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-07-11 14:40:50 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>> 
>>>>> It is a hierarchy of prerequisites of knowledge.
>>>>> Before anyone can understand a simulating termination
>>>>> analyzer based on an x86 emulator they must understand
>>>>> (1) x86 emulation
>>>>> (2) Termination Analysis.
>>>> 
>>>> The order should be:
>>>> (1) termination analysis and termination analyzer,
>>>> (2) simulating termination analyzer,
>>>> (3) x86,
>>>> (4) x86 emulation,
>>>> (5) simulating termination analyzer based on an x86 emulator.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> *That order has proven to not work*
>>> People are getting stuck on x86 emulation.
>> 
>> In that case it is likely that no order that contains x86 emulation at
>> any point will not work.
>> 
> 
> I explained x86 emulation in terms of a C language interpreter
> and the one detail of the x86 language that must be understood
> (the function calling convention) so that C programmers can
> understand the first half of my paper.
> 
> Simulating Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Simulating_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D 
> 
> 
> All of the rebuttals of my work remain anchored in disagreeing
> with the x86 language, they have no other basis.

The main error in your atricle is lack of proofs (i.e., sequences of
sentences that are either presented as assumtions or derived from
earlier sentences in the proof with truth preserving transformations).
In addtion, many of the defects already pointed out are still there.

-- 
Mikko