Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Every sufficiently competent C programmer knows --- Semantic
 Property of Finite String
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2025 23:04:06 +0800
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 198
Message-ID: <0c100c3673494d00bdc02acd44b2d5b930bd2212.camel@gmail.com>
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>
	 <vr17h1$18je3$1@dont-email.me> <vr1err$1ev1a$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Injection-Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2025 16:04:08 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a499a0831bd7f6466cd8a05ed4720a40";
	logging-data="1583826"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+iwpxLeZxxZJesO6n8tBOg"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.54.3 (3.54.3-1.fc41)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:a1PpQ0Tr0KeN17JGP/l5Qhp9rKo=
In-Reply-To: <vr1err$1ev1a$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 8885

On Fri, 2025-03-14 at 09:35 -0500, olcott wrote:
> On 3/14/2025 7:30 AM, dbush wrote:
> > On 3/13/2025 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:
> > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > NOT WHEN IT IS STIPULATED THAT THE BEHAVIOR BEING MEASU=
RED IS
> > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > The direct execution of DDD
> > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > is proven to be different than the behavior of DDD emulated=
 by HHH
> > > > > > > > according to the semantics of the x86 language.
> > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > Which is weird, considering that a simulator should produce t=
he same
> > > > > > > behaviour.
> > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > DECIDERS ARE REQUIRED TO REPORT ON THE SEMANTIC OR SYNTACTI=
C=20
> > > > > > > > PROPERTY OF
> > > > > > > > THEIR INPUT FINITE STRINGS.
> > > > > > > And not if the input called a different simulator that didn't=
 abort.
> > > > > > >=20
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > > Replacing the code of HHH with an unconditional simulator and=
=20
> > > > > > subsequently running HHH(DD) cannot possibly
> > > > > > reach its own final state no matter what HHH
> > > > > > does.
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > > Replacing the code of HHH1 with an unconditional simulator and=
=20
> > > > > > subsequently running HHH1(DD) does reach its
> > > > > > own final state.
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > > If someone was not a liar they would say that
> > > > > > these are different computations.
> > > > > >=20
> > > > >=20
> > > > > Only because one changes the code that DD runs and one doesn't
> > > >=20
> > > > It hardly matters. Either his emulation faithfully and correctly=
=20
> > > > establishes and reports (for EVERY program anyone cares to feed it)=
=20
> > > > the actual halting behaviour exhibited by the program it's emulatin=
g,=20
> > > > or it doesn't.
> > > >=20
> > >=20
> > > _DDD()
> > > [00002172] 55=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 push eb=
p=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 ; housekeeping
> > > [00002173] 8bec=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 mov=C2=A0 ebp,esp=
=C2=A0 ; housekeeping
> > > [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
> > > [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
> > > [0000217f] 83c404=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 add=C2=A0 esp,+04
> > > [00002182] 5d=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 pop=C2=
=A0 ebp
> > > [00002183] c3=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 ret
> > > Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
> > >=20
> > > 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.
> >=20
> > Right, because changing the code of HHH1 doesn't change the input.
> >=20
> > >=20
> > > 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.
> > >=20
> >=20
> > You only think that because you don't understand that changing the code=
=20
> > of HHH changes DDD.=C2=A0 Changing the input is not allowed.
> >=20
> >=20
> > > It is very common for people to be so well indoctrinated
> > > that they reject verified facts out-of-hand without review.
> > >=20
> > > > If it doesn't, it doesn't, and it's a lot of fuss over nothing.
> > > >=20
> > > > But if it /does/, then we're right back at Turing's proof, because =
a=20
> > > > working emulator is just another way of running the code, and is=
=20
> > > > therefore superfluous to requirements. It adds nothing to the debat=
e,=20
> > > > because we can just run the code and get the same answer the emulat=
or=20
> > > > would provide.
> > > >=20
> > >=20
> > > 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
> >=20
> > You don't have the same machine.=C2=A0 You just can't see that.
> >=20
> > And what you forget is that we're not asking what HHH is able to=20
> > simulate.=C2=A0 We're asking what DDD does when it's executed directly.=
=C2=A0 That=20
> > HHH attempts to use simulation doesn't change that.
> >=20
> > >=20
> > > PATHOLOGICAL SELF REFERENCE DOES CHANGE SEMANTICS
> > > PATHOLOGICAL SELF REFERENCE DOES CHANGE SEMANTICS
> > > PATHOLOGICAL SELF REFERENCE DOES CHANGE SEMANTICS
> > > PATHOLOGICAL SELF REFERENCE DOES CHANGE SEMANTICS
> > >=20
> > > "This sentence is not true"
> > > is neither true nor false because of PSR
> > >=20
> > > 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.
> > >=20
> > > > In other words, the emulator is a canard, a distraction, a cul-de-=
=20
> > > > sac, and a complete waste of time. If it happens to work, great! We=
ll=20
> > > > done that man. But it doesn't affect the HP logic one microscopical=
ly=20
> > > > minuscule millijot.
> > > >=20
> > >=20
> > > The emulator proves the actual behavior specified by the
> > > INPUT INPUT INPUT INPUT INPUT
> >=20
> > And the behavior of the input is specified by the specification:
> >=20
> >=20
> > Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of instructions) X=
=20
> > described as <X> with input Y:
> >=20
> > A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes the=
=20
> > following mapping:
> >=20
> > (<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly
> > (<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed direc=
tly
> >=20
> >=20
> > >=20
> > > That people disagree with the semantics of the x86 language
> > > proves how deeply indoctrinated they are.
> > >=20
> >=20
> > The semantics of the x86 language says that when the input to HHH(DDD)=
=20
> > is actually run on an actual x86 processor that it will halt.
> >=20
>=20
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========