Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: A state transition diagram proves ... GOOD PROGRESS
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2024 07:21:15 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <2207e01c12262979e430c649025ef03f86b3b9bf@i2pn2.org>
References: <ves6p1$2uoln$1@dont-email.me> <vesemu$2v7sh$1@dont-email.me>
 <a9fb95eb0ed914d0d9775448c005111eb43f2c5b@i2pn2.org>
 <veslpf$34ogr$1@dont-email.me>
 <647fe917c6bc0cfc78083ccf927fe280acdf2f9d@i2pn2.org>
 <vetq7u$3b8r2$1@dont-email.me>
 <d8006439ae02f55ba148e6be1f8c4787905a999f@i2pn2.org>
 <veu30q$3cqfo$1@dont-email.me>
 <0280e32ff3acd1fff59f9637f14bf309150878b4@i2pn2.org>
 <veu4rl$3ct1e$1@dont-email.me>
 <00bf3eb3a01c08467b34e8d7e99ca3fa193aa531@i2pn2.org>
 <veuc3j$3e9cv$1@dont-email.me> <veue7n$1a01$1@news.muc.de>
 <veufr6$3f30f$1@dont-email.me>
 <31fed9bd45277332bcabc040d4b21de642356f63@i2pn2.org>
 <veukur$3ftj1$1@dont-email.me>
 <fa44d9c8febaa7919fbb19dcea581908274b5f32@i2pn2.org>
 <vf033d$3rc0m$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2024 11:21:16 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2727397"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vf033d$3rc0m$3@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5447
Lines: 78

On 10/19/24 6:53 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/19/2024 2:22 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Fri, 18 Oct 2024 16:46:03 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 10/18/2024 4:24 PM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Fri, 18 Oct 2024 15:18:46 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> On 10/18/2024 2:51 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/18/2024 2:10 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The existence of the check has an effect right from the start;
>>>>>>>> besides, it is true the first time it is executed.
>>>>>>> So maybe you have ADD too. You can't seem to pay attention when
>>>>>>> things are explained to you many different times several different
>>>>>>> ways.
>>>>>> What you call "explaining" is in actual fact the assertion of
>>>>>> falsehoods.  This is usually called lying.
>>>>>> The variable Root does indeed affect your program.
>>>>> *I never say that it didn't*
>>>> You said nothing at all. Productive communication would have included
>>>> an agreement and clarification.
>>>>
>>>>> The "root" variable has NO EFFECT WHAT-SO-EVER on the correctness or
>>>>> completeness of HHH emulating itself emulating DDD until this DDD
>>>>> calls HHH(DDD).
>>>> DDD does nothing else but call HHH, and Root is part of HHH, so is
>>>> simulated the first time around.
>>> It is possible that I am not communicating this clearly enough
>>> The root variable cannot possibly have have any effect what-so-ever on
>>> the correctness of HHH emulating DDD or HHH emulating itself emulating
>>> DDD until the root variable tests true.
> 
>> It has the effect of not aborting the simulation.
> 
> It has this effect only after every competent software
> engineer can independently verify that it is correct:
> 
> Emulating termination analyzer HHH emulates its input DDD
> according to the semantics of the x86 language (including HHH
> emulating itself emulating DDD) until HHH correctly determines
> that its emulated DDD would never stop running unless aborted.

Except that the correct determination doesn't happen in the case that 
Root doesn't affect the behavior of the emulated DDD, so that impurity 
does have affect.

Remember, DDD as an input, even to the hypothocated HHH that has been 
modified to not abort at the point it does, MUST continue to call the 
HHH that DOES abort there, by the definition of a "program", (which 
includes the concept of a "function") as that definition requires said 
entity to contain *ALL* the code it uses, and thus all of HHH and 
anything it calls, which thus CAN'T be changed in the analysis.

Thus the Hypothetical HHH that has been changed needs to be put 
somewhere else in memory (or a separate memory space looking into this 
memory space), and thus not affect DDD.

Then, since it has been shown that this DDD calling the HHH that does 
abort, will reach the final return when fully executed or emulated, and 
thus the correct answer to the question about will it terminate is YES, 
it is terminating, and the NO answer is just wrong.

> 
>> Apart from that, Root is true in the root invocation of HHH (duh).
>>
> 
> The other place that root is true has no effect on the correctness
> of the x86 emulation. Do I have to tell you this 175 times before
> you notice that I said it once?
> 

Except that a partial x86 emulation (or a partial any type of emulation) 
doesn't show the final behavior of a program, and thus doesn't show that 
it will NEVER reach a point. The fact that without the affect of that 
variable there, a complete emulation of the code that is actually the 
program DDD (which includes that HHH *WIL* abort its emulation at the 
point it does) would reach the final return instruction.

All you have done is shown that you don't understand what you are 
talking about.