Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers
 disagree with basic facts
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 16:08:05 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 72
Message-ID: <v9of3l$1i745$3@dont-email.me>
References: <v9gv4k$4sc4$1@dont-email.me>
 <561f876601b0329c0260bac26f8b6dfb6e28647f@i2pn2.org>
 <v9h5af$9jn6$1@dont-email.me>
 <bdfcf881b9a9ce7e2bc197339d14a01beae1116d@i2pn2.org>
 <XYucnXqdgeWiVSH7nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <b8a96bbfe0516cf99b6f38c23fb4eccc3810ee7e@i2pn2.org>
 <v9krc5$uqhs$1@dont-email.me> <v9l7hf$vao1$3@dont-email.me>
 <v9laed$113gd$2@dont-email.me>
 <EbecnaOe1ajC1yP7nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <v9llh9$12l6c$2@dont-email.me> <v9mt9h$1bdeu$3@dont-email.me>
 <P6-cnWf3Z5zzLyL7nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <v9od8b$1i745$1@dont-email.me>
 <b5c6b0c3bf38cd73a9b84b7d96e2d45a53404dde@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 23:08:05 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0832828dca420f70d701da47ce3141da";
	logging-data="1645701"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18+n7/vJdBoNr40GG48L/jA"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:XU3NJ7LieEfH552MbJATcL2WW0Y=
In-Reply-To: <b5c6b0c3bf38cd73a9b84b7d96e2d45a53404dde@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4166

On 8/16/2024 3:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 8/16/24 4:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>
>> I break my points down to the basic facts of the semantics
>> of the x86 language and the basic facts of the semantics
>> of the C programming.
>>
>> I can't ever get to the point of the computer science
>> because reviewers disagree with these basic facts.
> 
> No, the problem is that your "facts" just disagree with the computere 
> science you claim to be doing.
> 

We never get anywhere near the computer science because
people disagree with 100% concrete fully specified semantics.
If they disagree with arithmetic we can never get to algebra.

>>
>> void DDD()
>> {
>>    HHH(DDD);
>> }
>>
>> _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]
> 
> Which is NOT a program 

I am talking above the behavior of the C function it is
dishonest to change the subject as any basis of rebuttal.

> and can not be the complete input to HHH, in 
> fact, HHH takes the whole of memory being uses as its "finite string" 
> input, or your problem is just falsely stated.
> 

The question is can DDD emulated by HHH according to the
semantics of the x86 language even stop running without
being aborted?

Ben is the only one that did not attempt some kind of
dishonesty on this question.

>>
>> <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
> 
> Right, and to statisfy this, since the only simulation that is "Correct" 
> for the determining of the behavior of a program is a COMPLETE behaivior 

UNTIL MEANS LIMITED.
IT DOES NOT MEAN YOUR MISCONCEPTION OF "COMPLETE"

YOU DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND THAT AN INFINITE
EXECUTION CANNOT BE COMPLETE. YOU AND OTHERS
ALWAYS USE THE TERM "COMPLETE" INCORRECTLY

THIS IS NO ORDINARY MISTAKE IT IS A STUPID MISTAKE.

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer