1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. COMP.THEORY

  • Re: Liar detector: Peter Olcott (self-admitted)

    From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to olcott on Thu Jul 4 11:25:10 2024
    XPost: sci.logic

    On 7/4/24 8:42 AM, olcott wrote:
    On 7/4/2024 2:45 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
    Op 03.jul.2024 om 23:02 schreef olcott:
    On 7/3/2024 3:55 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
    Op 03.jul.2024 om 22:04 schreef olcott:
    On 7/3/2024 2:27 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
    Op 03.jul.2024 om 21:15 schreef olcott:
    On 7/3/2024 2:11 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
    Op 03.jul.2024 om 20:57 schreef olcott:
    On 7/3/2024 1:40 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
    Op 03.jul.2024 om 20:20 schreef olcott:
    _DDD()
    [00002172] 55               push ebp      ; housekeeping
    [00002173] 8bec             mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
    [00002175] 6872210000       push 00002172 ; push DDD >>>>>>>>>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff       call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD) >>>>>>>>>>> [0000217f] 83c404           add esp,+04
    [00002182] 5d               pop ebp
    [00002183] c3               ret
    Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]

    DDD correctly emulated by any element of the infinite
    set of every pure function HHH cannot possibly reach
    its own ret instruction and halt. That HHH aborts its
    emulation at some point or never aborts its emulation
    cannot possibly change this.


    Ad hominem attacks always try to hide a lack of argumentation. >>>>>>>>>>
    It has been proved that HHH cannot possibly correctly simulate >>>>>>>>>> itself.

    That is false and you know it. That might not be a
    flat out lie as it is an sloppy use of language.

    HHH does correctly simulate itself simulating DDD one time,
    then it stops correctly simulating itself because this criteria >>>>>>>>> is met:

         HHH correctly simulates its input DDD until HHH
         correctly determines that its simulated DDD would
         never stop running unless aborted

    https://liarparadox.org/HHH(DDD)_Full_Trace.pdf

    So, the above code shows that the incorrect simulation of DDD >>>>>>>>>> by HHH is unable to reach the 'ret' instruction, because it >>>>>>>>>> either never aborts, or aborts one cycle too soon, when the >>>>>>>>>> simulated HHH is only one cycle from its own abort and return >>>>>>>>>> and then the return of DDD would follow.

    The criteria is:
         HHH correctly simulates its input DDD until HHH
         correctly determines that its simulated DDD would
         never stop running unless aborted

    It has been pointed out many times that this is sloppy use of
    language.

    It is the case that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot
    possibly reach its own ret instruction NO MATTER WHAT.

    This proves that HHH is unable to simulate itself.
    How the Hell do you think that you can get away with
    this when I proved that HHH does correctly emulate itself?
    https://liarparadox.org/HHH(DDD)_Full_Trace.pdf

    But you didn't simulate infinite behavior to the end.
    Of course I didn't infinite behavior HAS NO END.

    Why did do you ask such a strange question?
    Your trace shows that you didn't simulate the *finite*
    _DDD()
    [00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
    [00002173] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
    [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
    [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
    [0000217f] 83c404     add esp,+04
    [00002182] 5d         pop ebp
    [00002183] c3         ret
    Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]

    When DDD is correctly emulated by HHH neither the
    emulated DDD nor the emulated HHH can possibly stop
    running unless DDD is aborted.

    *Endlessly repeats until aborted*
    HHH emulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD)


    No contribution to the discussion detected.
    Liar

    Nice signaturd of who you are.

    Apparently, you have run out of idea of how to rephrase your lies, so
    you just fall back to name calling.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)