Path: ...!npeer.as286.net!npeer-ng0.as286.net!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic Subject: Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2024 17:41:24 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 131 Message-ID: References:

MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2024 00:41:25 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f83257e6e5a87f489aa8241c55498376"; logging-data="761154"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19zJlXUI/ygd/tgO0L+UIV6" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:hMRfbDuJ/YT5vWGhhlb5LmxNSJQ= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 6296 On 6/30/2024 4:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/30/24 5:48 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/30/2024 2:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/30/24 1:18 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/30/2024 3:42 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Of course not. I only said the actual truth. >>>> >>>> Richard just said that he affirms that when DDD correctly >>>> simulated by HHH calls HHH(DDD) that this call returns even >>>> though the semantics of the x86 language disagrees. >>> >>> What in the sematics of the x86 language, which INCLUDES that ever >>> instruction WILL be followed by the next instruction, says that the >>> HHH that is calld by DDD won't eventually return. >>> >>> Since you assert that HHH(DDD) called by main returns, then by your >>> requreement that HHH be a "pure function" ALL copies of it will do >>> the same thing. >>> >>> Yes, the EMULATION of HHH by HHH, but that can not be the "behavior >>> of the input" as that "behavior" depends on more than just the input. >>> >> >> Therefore DDD correctly simulated by HHH DOES NOT HALT. >> Thus HHH correctly reports that DDD DOES NOT HALT. >> > > And then it doesn't correct emulate the input, and thus is a LIAR. > You already know that you are the liar here and are lying about not knowing this. _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 call from DDD to HHH(DDD) when N steps of DDD are correctly emulated by any pure function x86 emulator HHH at machine address 0000217a cannot possibly return. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer