Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point
 --- in our head
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 00:02:32 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <24c98f52563f5d59ddc7d9a222f18408bf96b4ed@i2pn2.org>
References: <v9gv4k$4sc4$1@dont-email.me>
 <561f876601b0329c0260bac26f8b6dfb6e28647f@i2pn2.org>
 <v9h5af$9jn6$1@dont-email.me>
 <aa4bc24ac5642087e81796fffc31e5022bd8823e@i2pn2.org>
 <v9h9ec$a0id$1@dont-email.me>
 <190847da05ab48555c036a799e768f555461eb43@i2pn2.org>
 <v9hbhm$abr9$1@dont-email.me>
 <28bda6bb7d9efdacadf3de76c85a4857d0f83cb3@i2pn2.org>
 <v9ibpq$f16v$4@dont-email.me>
 <be041261e6d47d07a3b29255dc408e6803d870ad@i2pn2.org>
 <v9jnm0$q0lv$1@dont-email.me>
 <54c2cf5516e1477512a9dc4df913c8747164c631@i2pn2.org>
 <v9jom1$q5o5$1@dont-email.me>
 <192e56d5bedc6f7e537857a2cf21af0d9a352edd@i2pn2.org>
 <v9jpms$qaaf$1@dont-email.me>
 <8f9bb44064cab68e97b57ace4988d14928448672@i2pn2.org>
 <v9jrmt$qio5$1@dont-email.me>
 <2ac05356328ae560088cb3887b3b64351fb7ac19@i2pn2.org>
 <v9lbmv$119bh$2@dont-email.me>
 <f5fb8734b03c46c7a70dceb81db2f2f2fc6fc424@i2pn2.org>
 <v9mdmn$19n30$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 04:02:33 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2724236"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v9mdmn$19n30$4@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 9420
Lines: 180

On 8/15/24 10:31 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/15/2024 8:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 8/15/24 12:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 8/15/2024 6:03 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 8/14/24 11:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 8/14/2024 10:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/14/24 10:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/14/2024 9:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/14/24 10:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2024 9:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/24 10:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2024 6:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/24 9:34 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2024 6:22 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/24 12:24 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/13/2024 11:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/13/24 11:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/13/2024 10:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/13/24 10:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/13/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/13/24 8:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _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]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> according to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the semantics of the x86 language is necessarily 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, it is just the correct PARTIAL emulation of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the first N instructions of DDD, and not of all of DDD, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is what I said dufuss.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. You didn't. I added clairifying words, pointing 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out why you claim is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For an emulation to be "correct" it must be complete, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as partial emulations are only partially correct, so 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without the partial modifier, they are not correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A complete emulation of one instruction is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a complete emulation of one instruction
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A correct simulation of N instructions of DDD by 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sufficient to correctly predict the behavior of an 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unlimited
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, if a HHH returns to its caller, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Try to show exactly how DDD emulated by HHH returns 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to its caller*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (the first one doesn't even have a caller)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Use the above machine language instructions to show 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Remember how English works:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you ask "How DDD emulated by HHH returns to its 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> callers".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Show the exact machine code trace of how DDD emulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by HHH (according to the semantics of the x86 language)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaches its own machine address 00002183
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. The trace is to long, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Show the Trace of DDD emulated by HHH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and show the trace of DDD emulated by HHH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emulated by the executed HHH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just show the DDD code traces.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First you need to make a DDD that meets the requirements, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and that means that it calls an HHH that meets the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requirements.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> _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]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The is a hypothetical mental exercise and can be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> accomplished even if the only DDD in the world
>>>>>>>>>>>>> was simply typed into a word processor and never run.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But, must behave the rules of Computation Theory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That means DDD, to be a program, includes the code of HHH, 
>>>>>>>>>>>> and that HHH obeys the requirements of programs in 
>>>>>>>>>>>> computation theory, which means that it always produces the 
>>>>>>>>>>>> same answer to its caller for the same input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Note, its "Behavior" is defined as what it would do when 
>>>>>>>>>>>> run, even if it never is,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No that is the big mistake of comp theory where it violates
>>>>>>>>>>> its own rules.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> WHAT rule does it violate? And where do you get it from?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You have proven that you don't care.
>>>>>>>>> You are like a bot programmed in rebuttal mode.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I guess you don't have an answer, AGAIN.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Go back and look at the last 500 times
>>>>>>> that I answer it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You make the claim, but can't show a reliable source for it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I make a claim and prove that it is correct
>>>>> and you change the subject and form a rebuttal
>>>>> of the changed subject.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, you make a claim and present a false argument, not a proof.
>>>>
>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========