Path: ...!feed.opticnetworks.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts?
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 10:31:34 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 89
Message-ID: <v5b7cm$qtn6$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v56n8h$3pr25$1@dont-email.me> <v56ntj$onl3$7@i2pn2.org> <v56ps2$3q4ea$1@dont-email.me> <v56sk3$p1du$2@i2pn2.org> <v56tfv$3ql1v$2@dont-email.me> <v570n5$onl4$11@i2pn2.org> <v571lc$3rrgk$1@dont-email.me> <v57603$onl3$12@i2pn2.org> <v576cg$3soh6$2@dont-email.me> <v576nv$onl3$14@i2pn2.org> <v5775h$3soh6$5@dont-email.me> <v58r5s$9j01$1@dont-email.me> <v597og$brmn$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 09:31:34 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d1ac2f9e5199860dce2326c8c254fcd0";
	logging-data="882406"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18VRGgGy1EydETB+0lwFQ4k"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:cz+qLsEDD0YSi4sVttu59TqVEY4=
Bytes: 4327

On 2024-06-23 13:25:36 +0000, olcott said:

> On 6/23/2024 4:50 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-06-22 19:03:13 +0000, olcott said:
>> 
>>> On 6/22/2024 1:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/22/24 2:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/22/2024 1:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/22/24 1:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/22/2024 12:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/22/24 12:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>    HHH0(DDD);
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> The input to HHH0(DDD) includes itself.
>>>>>>>>> The input to HHH1(DDD) DOES NOT include itself.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> It is stipulated that correct emulation is defined by the
>>>>>>>>> semantics of the x86 programming language and nothing else.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> And thus, your emulation traces show that your "Simulating Halt 
>>>>>>>> Deciders" do not do a "Correct Simulation"
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Apparently your ADD preventing you from paying close attention
>>>>>>> to ALL of my words.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> *Function names adapted to correspond to my updated paper*
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>    H0(DDD);
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> *When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct*
>>>>>>> *emulation is the semantics of the x86 programming language*
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> *When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct*
>>>>>>> *emulation is the semantics of the x86 programming language*
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> *When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct*
>>>>>>> *emulation is the semantics of the x86 programming language*
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> *When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct*
>>>>>>> *emulation is the semantics of the x86 programming language*
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> *When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct*
>>>>>>> *emulation is the semantics of the x86 programming language*
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> then we see that when DDD is correctly emulated by H0 that
>>>>>>> its call to H0(DDD) cannot possibly return.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Since your H0 has never demonstrated that is actually DOES the correct 
>>>>>> simulation per your stipulation,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Liar
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Then where is it?
>>>> 
>>> When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct emulation
>>> is the semantics of the x86 programming language then we see that
>>> when DDD is correctly emulated by H0 that its call to H0(DDD)
>>> cannot possibly return.
>> 
>> Semantics of the x86 programming language does not specifiy emulation
>> or correctness of emulation.
>> 
> 
> WRONG!

Unless you point where in Intel's documentation emulation or correctness
of emulation is specified you have no basis to say "WRONG".

> Otherwise we could say that for the decimal integers
> 2 + 3 = 17 and the semantics of arithmetic does not disagree.

I can believe you couls but I would not.

> The semantics of arithmetic agrees that for the decimal
> integers 2 + 3 = 5.

Intel's processors seem to agree, too. But I havn't checked every one.

-- 
Mikko