Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.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: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2024 11:42:49 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 81
Message-ID: <v5r5q9$ekvf$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v5pbjf$55h$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2024 10:42:49 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="edf92710cff98efa55bbf9e0df377222";
	logging-data="480239"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/tJbZU2EmeIxY6Fgsbs+kx"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:/TMjpmoy1oqc7zOil4mBWq3Bhzk=
Bytes: 3538

On 2024-06-29 16:09:19 +0000, olcott said:

> People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with
> the semantics of the x86 language. That is isomorphic to
> trying to get away with disagreeing with arithmetic.
> 
> typedef void (*ptr)();
> int H0(ptr P);
> 
> void Infinite_Loop()
> {
>    HERE: goto HERE;
> }
> 
> void Infinite_Recursion()
> {
>    Infinite_Recursion();
> }
> 
> void DDD()
> {
>    H0(DDD);
> }
> 
> int main()
> {
>    H0(Infinite_Loop);
>    H0(Infinite_Recursion);
>    H0(DDD);
> }
> 
> Every C programmer that knows what an x86 emulator is knows
> that when H0 emulates the machine language of Infinite_Loop,
> Infinite_Recursion, and DDD that it must abort these emulations
> so that itself can terminate normally.
> 
> When this is construed as non-halting criteria then simulating
> termination analyzer H0 is correct to reject these inputs as
> non-halting by returning 0 to its caller.
> 
> Simulating termination analyzers must report on the behavior
> that their finite string input specifies thus H0 must report
> that DDD correctly emulated by H0 remains stuck in recursive
> simulation.
> 
> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>      If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>      until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
>      stop running unless aborted then
> 
>      H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>      specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
> 
> People are trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics
> of the x86 language by disagreeing that
> 
> The call from DDD to HHH(DDD) when N steps of DDD are correctly
> emulated by any pure function x86 emulator HHH cannot possibly
> 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 100% complete and total rewrite of the prior paper*
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381636432_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_P 
> 

Nothing above is or points to any evdence about the alleged disagreement.

-- 
Mikko