Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: HHH(DDD) computes the mapping from its input to HHH emulating
 itself emulating DDD --- anyone that says otherwise is a liar
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2024 22:19:45 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <254d3e7be0462ba8225ec0eb4804941ea635770d@i2pn2.org>
References: <vhdd32$oq0l$1@dont-email.me>
 <c8e35b5f542012b2d798e7fe2afc3004298a2aa5@i2pn2.org>
 <vhdn96$r2jp$1@dont-email.me>
 <907b6e45c74720036b5f42c503d76ac426a71c92@i2pn2.org>
 <vhe69i$tuln$2@dont-email.me>
 <622e5aa555a9941d4cdb292d1e3e54e687e7b547@i2pn2.org>
 <vhe9rl$ue1m$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2024 03:19:46 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2977868"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vhe9rl$ue1m$2@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4943
Lines: 96

On 11/17/24 9:47 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/17/2024 8:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 11/17/24 8:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 11/17/2024 4:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 11/17/24 4:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 11/17/2024 2:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/17/24 1:36 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]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> DDD emulated by any encoding of HHH that emulates N
>>>>>>> to infinity number of steps of DDD cannot possibly
>>>>>>> reach its "return" instruction final halt state.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This applies to every DDD emulated by any HHH no
>>>>>>> matter the recursive depth of emulation. Thus it is
>>>>>>> a verified fact that the input to HHH never halts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I will also add, that since you have dropped your requirements on 
>>>>>> HHH (or are seeming to try to divorse yourself from previous 
>>>>>> assumptions) there are MANY HHH that can complete the emulation, 
>>>>>> they just fail to be "pure functions".
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The damned liar despicably dishonest attempt to get away
>>>>> with changing the subject away from DDD reaching its final
>>>>> halt state.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which is just what YOU are doing, as "Halting" and what a "Program" 
>>>> is are DEFINED, and you can't change it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> YET ANOTHER STUPID LIE.
>>> A SMART LIAR WOULD NEVER SAY THAT I MEANT
>>> PROGRAM WHEN I ALWAYS SPECIFIED A C FUNCTION.
>>>
>>
>> But then you can talk about "emulation" or x86 semantics, as both of 
>> those are operations done on PROGRAMS.
>>
> 
> No stupid I provided a published paper that includes the
> termination analysis of C functions.

Look again at what they process. C functions that include all the 
functions they call.

> 
> LLVM is equivalent to x86 code. PDF page 27

And show where the emulate a non-leaf function that it doesn't have the 
code for the functions it calls.

This seems to be the thing that you are fundamentally missing, "Program" 
doesn't mean has a "main" function, program means it is the complete 
code with a defined input/output.

> 
> Automated Termination Analysis of C Programs
> https://publications.rwth-aachen.de/record/972440/files/972440.pdf
> 
> 

Yep, just shows you don't understand what the paper is talking about.

And note, the "processing" they are doing is NOT "emulation" of actually 
trying to see what each "instruction" does, but a transformation of each 
block of code to see how program state transforms as the program 
progresses, and under what conditions.

This is because for termination analysis, you don't have "values" that 
you are processing so you can do "emulation", but only a list of 
pre-conditions that you transform to post-conditions to try to prove 
that the program WILL terminate for all inputs (or for what class of 
inputs).

You just continue to demonstrate that you don't understand what you are 
talking about, but just parrot by rote things not learned, so you don't 
understand in what context they apply.

Sorry, you are just sinking your reputation.