Path: ...!news.nobody.at!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Fred. Zwarts" Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Liar detector: Fred, Richard, Joes and Alan --- Ben's agreement Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2024 14:38:37 +0200 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 44 Message-ID: References: <60a1c2490e9bd9a5478fd173a20ed64d5eb158f9@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2024 14:38:38 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="48d55f70239961768cb309f2b9ff54c8"; logging-data="3763761"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/4KgZywz8BuUcIZnG2R3uA" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:eOLI7RqSkt/TkLv8pj6eLrg4Ces= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-GB Bytes: 3688 Op 13.Jul.2024 OM 14:28 screech Fred. Warts: > Op 13.jul.2024 om 14:15 schreef olcott: >> 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. >>> >> >> The issue with this is that people believe that they >> can disagree with the x86 language. That is the same >> as disagreeing with arithmetic, not allowed. >> > > The real issue is that olcott thinks he can change the semantics of the > x86 language at will. He thinks that the behaviour of a program does not > change if it is halted halfway its execution. Therefore, he does not > understand that when the simulation of a halting program is aborted > before it reaches its end, it is still a correct simulation according to > the semantics of the x86 language. > before it reaches its end, it is an incorrect simulation according to the semantics of the x86 language.