Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Every sufficiently competent C programmer knows --- Semantic
 Property of Finite String
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2025 23:03:52 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <033b052fccc451753d03d559358b9f1d2fd6623b@i2pn2.org>
References: <vqntaq$1jut5$1@dont-email.me> <vqp388$1tvqa$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqpdv9$202b2$2@dont-email.me> <vqperb$20c9k$2@dont-email.me>
 <E6mcnWv3nMa66036nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <vqs2n8$2knng$1@dont-email.me>
 <5429f6c8b8a8a79e06b4aeefe677cc54a2a636bf@i2pn2.org>
 <vqt9jp$2spcd$6@dont-email.me> <vqtag4$2t2hb$2@dont-email.me>
 <vqtgl0$2u7fo$1@dont-email.me>
 <924e22fc46d629b311b16a954dd0bed980a0a094@i2pn2.org>
 <vqvg7s$3s1qt$3@dont-email.me> <vqvgb4$3kfru$5@dont-email.me>
 <vqvi94$3tk5h$1@dont-email.me> <vr01sq$9741$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2025 03:03:52 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="82239"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vr01sq$9741$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 7069
Lines: 153

On 3/13/25 9:48 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/13/2025 4:21 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 13/03/2025 20:48, dbush wrote:
>>> On 3/13/2025 4:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/13/2025 4:27 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>> Am Wed, 12 Mar 2025 21:41:34 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>> On 3/12/2025 7:56 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/12/2025 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> NOT WHEN IT IS STIPULATED THAT THE BEHAVIOR BEING MEASURED IS
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The direct execution of DDD
>>>>>>
>>>>>> is proven to be different than the behavior of DDD emulated by HHH
>>>>>> according to the semantics of the x86 language.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which is weird, considering that a simulator should produce the same
>>>>> behaviour.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> DECIDERS ARE REQUIRED TO REPORT ON THE SEMANTIC OR SYNTACTIC 
>>>>>> PROPERTY OF
>>>>>> THEIR INPUT FINITE STRINGS.
>>>>> And not if the input called a different simulator that didn't abort.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Replacing the code of HHH with an unconditional simulator and 
>>>> subsequently running HHH(DD) cannot possibly
>>>> reach its own final state no matter what HHH
>>>> does.
>>>>
>>>> Replacing the code of HHH1 with an unconditional simulator and 
>>>> subsequently running HHH1(DD) does reach its
>>>> own final state.
>>>>
>>>> If someone was not a liar they would say that
>>>> these are different computations.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Only because one changes the code that DD runs and one doesn't
>>
>> It hardly matters. Either his emulation faithfully and correctly 
>> establishes and reports (for EVERY program anyone cares to feed it) 
>> the actual halting behaviour exhibited by the program it's emulating, 
>> or it doesn't.
>>
> 
> _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]

Not a program, and can not be correctly emulated beyond address 0000217A 
as it goes outside the input.

> 
> That everyone expects the behavior of the directly
> executed DDD to be the same as DDD correctly emulated
> by HHH1 is verified as a factually correct expectation.

Because it will be, at least when DDD is actually a program will all its 
code specified.

> 
> That everyone expects the behavior of the directly
> executed DDD to be the same as DDD correctly emulated
> by HHH is verified as a factually incorrect expectation.

But it will be when DDD is actually a program with all its code specified.

You are accepted that fact by failing to provide the first instruction, 
actualy correctly emulated by HHH that differed for the emulation by HHH1.

> 
> It is very common for people to be so well indoctrinated
> that they reject verified facts out-of-hand without review.

Yes, as you have because you have brainwashed yourself into refusing to 
look at what you are saying, to the point that you have admitted that 
all you work is just a fraud since you admit that you have changed core 
terms of art from the definitions in the system, violating the basic 
premise of logic.

> 
>> If it doesn't, it doesn't, and it's a lot of fuss over nothing.
>>
>> But if it /does/, then we're right back at Turing's proof, because a 
>> working emulator is just another way of running the code, and is 
>> therefore superfluous to requirements. It adds nothing to the debate, 
>> because we can just run the code and get the same answer the emulator 
>> would provide.
>>
> 
> For the first time in the history of mankind it proves
> that a simulation of a virtual machine according to
> the semantics of this machine language
> DOES NOT ALWAYS HAVE THE SAME BEHAVIOR AS THE DIRECT
> EXECUTION OF THIS SAME MACHINE

WHAT "PROOF"?

You have

> 
> PATHOLOGICAL SELF REFERENCE DOES CHANGE SEMANTICS
> PATHOLOGICAL SELF REFERENCE DOES CHANGE SEMANTICS
> PATHOLOGICAL SELF REFERENCE DOES CHANGE SEMANTICS
> PATHOLOGICAL SELF REFERENCE DOES CHANGE SEMANTICS

Nope, your problem is you system doesn't HAVE semantics, since you 
aren't dealing with actual programs, because you have just lied to 
yourself about what you are doing,

> 
> "This sentence is not true"
> is neither true nor false because of PSR
> 
> This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true"
> The exact same word-for-word sentence
> IS TRUE IN THIS DIFFERING CONTEXT THAT DOES NOT HAVE PSR.

Nope, you are just showing that you have no idea at all about how to do 
logic.

Sorry, but you have trashed your reputation and buried it under your 
pile of POOP.

> 
>> In other words, the emulator is a canard, a distraction, a cul-de-sac, 
>> and a complete waste of time. If it happens to work, great! Well done 
>> that man. But it doesn't affect the HP logic one microscopically 
>> minuscule millijot.
>>
> 
> The emulator proves the actual behavior specified by the
> INPUT INPUT INPUT INPUT INPUT

Only if it actually does, by being correct.

> 
> That people disagree with the semantics of the x86 language
> proves how deeply indoctrinated they are.
> 

No, we understand the x86 lamguage, you are the one that thinks you can 
change the meaning of instructions based on "stipulations" that are 
contradictory to fact.

Sorry, you are just proving you are nothing but a pathological lying idiot.