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: The philosophy of computation reformulates existing ideas on a
 new basis ---x86 code is a liar?
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2024 10:54:09 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <3e205e7f0f57c5cc13dc62f96164cf88e68ffd54@i2pn2.org>
References: <vfli1h$fj8s$1@dont-email.me> <vgc2ju$1bqmm$1@dont-email.me>
 <585823321cf0a5e579b855438cfbf93229b233ee@i2pn2.org>
 <vgdjdq$1jr80$1@dont-email.me>
 <b24e957b9f2af15c0ba7f18a3f7bfe2c6ff6419d@i2pn2.org>
 <vgegce$1phg2$1@dont-email.me>
 <e36afcb3758e0fb26d58019c08a24c6df0b562a7@i2pn2.org>
 <vgenp1$1uh1b$2@dont-email.me>
 <acecb0ba68d86b00c95fae1ecf690ec514aee26b@i2pn2.org>
 <vgfq86$24mon$1@dont-email.me>
 <e7a092c593ad1431a1bf6589d0102312545612ef@i2pn2.org>
 <vghb16$2ge1v$1@dont-email.me>
 <e51f21daadd358ef13801c918106c2fdc65a9f6b@i2pn2.org>
 <vghe3p$2gr3p$1@dont-email.me>
 <4cb98b3918d6745f53bb19582b59e786d4af5022@i2pn2.org>
 <vghgar$2h30o$1@dont-email.me>
 <e40629600e317dba47dd3d066d83899fa7b8a7ab@i2pn2.org>
 <vgiq1d$2nkqv$1@dont-email.me>
 <e84328012ce8d1e75b9b569f15f74fde315a0548@i2pn2.org>
 <vgjd2f$2qdc5$1@dont-email.me>
 <4654d9db2fa0906d7ab7a1c6c09139ab0b0110cd@i2pn2.org>
 <vgl7vl$37h38$4@dont-email.me> <vgnph1$3qcpl$1@dont-email.me>
 <vgns0o$3qq7s$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2024 15:54:10 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1690789"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <vgns0o$3qq7s$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6169
Lines: 94

On 11/9/24 9:36 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/9/2024 7:53 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-11-08 14:41:57 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 11/8/2024 3:57 AM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Thu, 07 Nov 2024 15:56:31 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> On 11/7/2024 3:24 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>> Am Thu, 07 Nov 2024 10:31:41 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>> On 11/7/2024 5:56 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/6/24 11:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is not what the machine code of DDD that calls the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine code of HHH says.
>>>>>> The code by itself doesn’t say "do not return". That is a semantic
>>>>>> property.
>>>>> The code itself does say that within the semantics of the x86 language
>>>>> as I have been saying all long hundreds of times.
>>>> There is no "do not return" instruction.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, so that is part of the input, or it can't be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emulated.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Machine code of HHH says that it will abort its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emulation and return, so that is the only correct result
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> per the x86 language.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you really so ignorant of these things that you think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the fact that HHH returns to main() causes its 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDD to reach its own final state?
>>>>>> Yes, because DDD calls HHH.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But the PROGRAM DDD, that it is emulating does. Just its 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PARTIAL emulation of it is aborted before it gets there.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just repeating your errors, and not even trying to refute the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> errors pointed out, I guess that means you accept these as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> errors.
>>>>>> There is only one program DDD, although it is invoked multiple times.
>>>>>> We don’t care whether HHH actually simulates the return as long as it
>>>>>> actually derives (not guesses) the right result.
>>>>> DDD emulated by HHH does have different behavior than DDD emulated by
>>>>> HHH1 or directly executed DDD.
>>>>> DDD emulated by CANNOT POSSIBLY HALT no matter WTF HHH does: abort or
>>>>> NEVER abort.
>>>> When the instance of HHH that DDD calls aborts simulating, it returns
>>>> to the simulated DDD, which then halts.
>>>>
>>>>> There <is> a key distinguishing difference in the behavior of DDD
>>>>> emulated by HHH and DDD emulated by HHH1 or directly executed. It is
>>>>> ridiculously stupid to simply ignore this for three f-cking years.
>>>> That difference is not due to DDD.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The semantic property of the finite string pair: HHH/DDD
>>> unequivocally entails that DDD never reaches its final halt state.
>>
>> No, it does not. You might say that the semantic property of the
>> finite string "Olcott is an idiot" unequvocally entails that Olcott
>> is an idiot but it does not.
>>
> 
> The semantic property of the finite string pair: HHH/DDD
> unequivocally entails that DDD never reaches its final halt
> state WITHIN THE SEMANTICS OF THE X86 LANGUAGE.

No, since the sematic property of the finite string pair: HHH/DDD is the 
actual behavior of a full emulaition of the program described by it 
(DDD) and that DOES reach the finite return instruction if HHH(DDD) 
gives and answer, no HHH(DDD) that returns the value of 0 is correct.

> 
> Why is everyone here a damned liar regarding DDD emulated
> by HHH according to the semantics of the x86 language never
> reaching its own "return" instruction final halt state?

Because DDD emulated by HHH is NOT the semantic meaning of the string 
pair HHH/DDD.

But, you seem to be too stupid to understand that.

> 
> I am sure that everyone here knows that they are a damned
> liar about this because no one has even attempted to show
> *EXACTLY HOW IT IS NOT TRUE*
> 

No, everyone here (but you) is talking the truth,

YOU are the DAMNED LIAR because you are the one not using the words 
correctly.

We *HAVE* shown exactly how it is not true, by showing the actual 
meaning of the words you are using.

If you lie to yourself about the meaning of the words, of course you end 
up lying with the words you are using.