Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Every sufficiently competent C programmer knows --- Semantic
 Property of Finite String
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2025 11:02:55 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <0672fec6cb2a5c56fd674bbbb3d2b2101c8f295f@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
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2025 11:02:55 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="131589"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 5089
Lines: 78

Am Thu, 13 Mar 2025 20:48:09 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> 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.

Doesn't it?

>>>>>> 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.
>> 
> 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.
> 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.
A simulation should not differ from the actual execution. Why should it?

>> 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
Bold claim. How does that make sense?

> PATHOLOGICAL SELF REFERENCE DOES CHANGE SEMANTICS
As opposed to what? Of course a different program has different semantics.

> 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.
It's a different sentence.

>> 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
No, the direct execution does.

> That people disagree with the semantics of the x86 language proves how
> deeply indoctrinated they are.
With what semantics?
-- 
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.