Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Liar detector: Fred, Richard, Joes and Alan --- Ben's agreement
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2024 15:50:54 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <f87dff7897c69b00642fe8340335620eaa59e6b4@i2pn2.org>
References: <v644pn$29t4h$3@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$1@dont-email.me>
	<6dc1845ddaf0e8145d02ff73dfbe3507fe389d58@i2pn2.org>
	<v6h0ap$tusl$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2024 15:50:54 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2560098"; 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: 3341
Lines: 31

Am Mon, 08 Jul 2024 10:24:09 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 7/8/2024 10:08 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Mon, 08 Jul 2024 10:04:37 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 7/8/2024 9:25 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 07.jul.2024 om 15:46 schreef olcott:

>>> 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.
>> An aborted simulation is not correct.
> It turns out the the #1 best selling author of theory of computation
> textbooks is not wrong when he agreed with my verbatim words.
He is not, but you assume the condition has been met.

> On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>  > I don't think that is the shell game.  PO really /has/ an H (it's
>  > trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines that P(P)
>  > *would* never stop running *unless* aborted.
> ...
>  > But H determines (correctly) that D would not halt if it were not
>  > halted.  That much is a truism.
> *Proves that Ben agreed that the criteria has been met*
No. P(P) IS in fact aborted, so DOES stop running.

> Ben thought that H must report on the behavior of D after H aborts its
> simulation before it aborts this simulation.
Of course it does. If it would not run forever, it would be wrong to 
abort.

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