Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon 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: <561f876601b0329c0260bac26f8b6dfb6e28647f@i2pn2.org> <190847da05ab48555c036a799e768f555461eb43@i2pn2.org> <28bda6bb7d9efdacadf3de76c85a4857d0f83cb3@i2pn2.org> <54c2cf5516e1477512a9dc4df913c8747164c631@i2pn2.org> <192e56d5bedc6f7e537857a2cf21af0d9a352edd@i2pn2.org> <8f9bb44064cab68e97b57ace4988d14928448672@i2pn2.org> <2ac05356328ae560088cb3887b3b64351fb7ac19@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 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: 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 ==========