Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!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 11:07:18 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 48
Message-ID: <v6h2rm$ue7s$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v644pn$29t4h$3@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$1@dont-email.me> <v6gv65$to0m$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6h2li$ud7p$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2024 18:07:18 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8e9286d680ce7523efb7696bf75a6d8f";
	logging-data="997628"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+2WrN7MwxE+Iqw+I+GHWWB"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:9GYLzOsTEAUj0yHv04dvqfxQiCU=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v6h2li$ud7p$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3898

On 7/8/2024 11:04 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 08.jul.2024 om 17:04 schreef olcott:
>> 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
> 
> But only the first part is simulated, not the full input. The simulation 
> must simulate the full input. It will will only become correct if also 
> the other behaviour of HHH is simulated. But HHH is unable to simulate 
> itself up to that point.
> That is what the x86 code specifies.
> 
>> (2) that calls an emulated HHH(DDD) that
>> (3) emulates another DDD... goto (2) or abort
> 
> And when it aborts, it is one cycle to soon.

Try to show how infinity is one cycle too soon.

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