Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Mikko Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Liar detector: Fred, Richard, Joes and Alan --- Honest Dialogue ? --- Infinite set of HHH/DDD pairs Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2024 10:14:15 +0300 Organization: - Lines: 104 Message-ID: References: <60a1c2490e9bd9a5478fd173a20ed64d5eb158f9@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2024 09:14:15 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b538c18a808e7b1dbb2e6c99920961e5"; logging-data="1177191"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+Xac2C9bRMPQ7NCZ49Svl8" User-Agent: Unison/2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:2CrVKUy1ndwmm2u+tNB89Xb3Oig= Bytes: 5710 On 2024-07-22 14:13:33 +0000, olcott said: > On 7/22/2024 3:01 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2024-07-21 13:50:17 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> On 7/21/2024 4:38 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2024-07-20 13:28:36 +0000, olcott said: >>>> >>>>> On 7/20/2024 3:54 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 2024-07-19 14:39:25 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 7/19/2024 3:51 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You apparently mean that no HHHᵢ can simulate the corresponding DDDᵢ to >>>>>>>> its termination? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No I don't mean that at all that incorrectly allocates the error >>>>>>> to the emulator. >>>>>> >>>>>> Anyway you did not say that some HHHᵢ can simulate the corresponding DDDᵢ >>>>>> to its termination. And each DDDᵢ does terminate, whether simulated or not. >>>>> >>>>> *Until you quit lying about this we cannot have an honest dialog* >>>> >>>> I don't believe that you can have a honest dialog, at least not without >>>> a chairman who wants to and can keep the dialog honest. >>>> >>> >>> void DDD() >>> { >>>    HHH(DDD); >>>    return; >>> } >>> >>> When N steps of DDD are emulated by pure function HHH according >>> to the semantics of the x86 language then N steps are emulated correctly. >>> >>> The subscripts to HHH and DDD pairs are each element of >>> the set of positive integers ℤ+ >>> >>> When we examine the infinite set of every HHH/DDD pair >>> such that: >>> >>> HHH₁ one step of DDD₁ is correctly emulated by HHH₁. >>> HHH₂ two steps of DDD₂ are correctly emulated by HHH₂. >>> HHH₃ three steps of DDD₃ are correctly emulated by HHH₃. >>> ... >>> HHHₙ n steps of DDDₙ are correctly emulated by HHHₙ. >>> >>> Then DDD correctly simulated by any pure function HHH cannot >>> possibly reach its own return instruction and halt, therefore >>> every HHH is correct to reject its DDD as non-halting. >> >> That does not follow. It is never correct to reject a halting comoputation >> as non-halting. >> > > In each of the above instances DDD never reaches its return > instruction and halts. This proves that HHH is correct to > report that its DDD never halts. The same reasoning "proves" that HHH called by DDD does not return and therefore HHH is not decider. But the "proof" is not sound. > > When every element of an infinite set of the DDD of HHH/DDD > pairs never halt (all black cats are black) then HHH can > report that its DDD never halts (all black cats are cats). > > Most people here seems intentionally ridiculously stupid when > it comes to hypothetical scenarios: > > _DDD() > [00002163] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping > [00002164] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping > [00002166] 6863210000 push 00002163 ; push DDD > [0000216b] e853f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DDD) > [00002170] 83c404 add esp,+04 > [00002173] 5d pop ebp > [00002174] c3 ret > Size in bytes:(0018) [00002174] > > A correct simulation is defined as emulating the x86 instructions > of DDD according to the semantics specified by these instructions. > This includes emulating HHH emulating DDD according to the semantics > of the x86 instructions of HHH. > > Within the hypothetical scenario where DDD is correctly emulated > by its HHH and this HHH never aborts its simulation neither DDD > nor HHH ever stops running. > > This conclusively proves that HHH is required to abort the > simulation of its corresponding DDD as required by the design > spec that every partial halt decider must halt and is otherwise > not any kind of decider at all. > > That HHH is required to abort its simulation of DDD conclusively > proves that this DDD never halts. That DDD halts is conclusively proven by a direct excution or DDD. -- Mikko