Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Liar detector: Fred, Richard, Joes and Alan --- Ben's agreement
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2024 18:35:59 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <c7c06fd5b24e1d1c101b9a1de8bba0909ca9e1f0@i2pn2.org>
References: <v644pn$29t4h$3@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>
	<v6m4qu$1uean$2@dont-email.me> <v6m56j$1ugv5$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2024 18:35:59 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2822467"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4109
Lines: 58

Am Wed, 10 Jul 2024 09:17:55 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 7/10/2024 9:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 10.jul.2024 om 15:37 schreef olcott:
>>> 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:

>>>>>> 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.
You said previously that it could be a correct simulation to abort that.

>> But when simulating a halting code, it is incorrect to abort the
>> simulation halfway, even when you dream of another non-halting code.
>> Such dreams are irrelevant.
> 
> As soon as it is certain that not aborting results in its own
> non-termination a simulating termination must abort.
It is certain that the simulation will terminate of its own accord.

-- 
Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 16:52:17 -0500 schrieb olcott:
Objectively I am a genius.