1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. COMP.THEORY

  • Re: Liar detector: Peter Olcott --- Ben's agreement

    From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to olcott on Tue Jul 9 22:51:40 2024
    XPost: sci.logic

    On 7/9/24 10:06 AM, olcott wrote:
    On 7/9/2024 3:56 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
    Op 08.jul.2024 om 19:36 schreef olcott:
    On 7/8/2024 11:16 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
    You believe that two equals infinity.

    void Infinite_Loop()
    {
       HERE: goto HERE;
    }

    void Infinite_Recursion()
    {
       Infinite_Recursion();
    }

    void DDD()
    {
       HHH(DDD);
    }

    Two cycles is enough to correctly determine that none
    of the above functions correctly emulated by HHH can
    possibly halt.

    That you don't see this is ignorance or deception.


    The first two irrelevant examples cannot halt, but they differ
    fundamentally from DDD, because DDD, like Finite_Recursion, halts
    after N repetitions.


    *I have never explained this issue to Ben this clearly before*
    Ben seems to believe that HHH must report that it need not
    abort the emulation of DDD because AFTER HHH has already
    aborted this emulation DDD does not need to be aborted.


    Because it does, since this HHH DOES abort its emulation, it turns out
    that a complete emulation of this input could be done, which is the
    definition of not needing to abort the emulation.

    Remember, you can't change the input when you talk about it, and that
    includes the copy of the ORIGINAL HHH that it calls. So any "alternate"
    HHH you want to talk about needs to have a different name and at a
    different address. That is a limitation of the format you put your
    program into.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to olcott on Sat Jul 13 09:15:50 2024
    On 7/13/24 8:07 AM, olcott wrote:
    On 7/13/2024 2:48 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2024-07-12 13:07:13 +0000, olcott said:

    On 7/12/2024 2:49 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2024-07-11 14:40:50 +0000, olcott said:

    It is a hierarchy of prerequisites of knowledge.
    Before anyone can understand a simulating termination
    analyzer based on an x86 emulator they must understand
    (1) x86 emulation
    (2) Termination Analysis.

    The order should be:
    (1) termination analysis and termination analyzer,
    (2) simulating termination analyzer,
    (3) x86,
    (4) x86 emulation,
    (5) simulating termination analyzer based on an x86 emulator.


    *That order has proven to not work*
    People are getting stuck on x86 emulation.

    In that case it is likely that no order that contains x86 emulation at
    any point will not work.


    I explained x86 emulation in terms of a C language interpreter
    and the one detail of the x86 language that must be understood
    (the function calling convention) so that C programmers can
    understand the first half of my paper.

    Simulating Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Simulating_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D

    All of the rebuttals of my work remain anchored in disagreeing
    with the x86 language, they have no other basis.


    NO, they are anchored in showing your misunderstand of the x86 language.

    *This proves that every rebuttal is wrong somewhere*
    No DDD instance of each HHH/DDD pair of the infinite set of
    every HHH/DDD pair ever reaches past its own machine address of
    0000216b and halts thus proving that every HHH is correct to
    reject its input DDD as non-halting.


    Then why does EVERY DDD, based on an HHH(DDD) that returns, which is
    EVERY HHH that ever decides to aborts its emulation and return 0, when
    you actually look at the FULL execution sequence DEFINED BY THE x86
    language (which never says to stop the sequence until you get to a
    terminal instruction) end up at that address?

    The DDD reaches there, what doesn't is the PARTIAL (and thus not fully
    correct) emulation of it by HHH.

    You just don't know the difference between reality (what actually
    happens) and the PARTIAL observation of that reality by HHH.


    This just shows your utter ignorance of Truth and Logic, and the
    limitations cause by your corrupted mental model that tries to limit
    Truth to what is known instead of what actually is.

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