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: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers
 disagree with basic facts
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 17:37:30 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <40c46fab1b847eb2f82a5df5acf5e4668055eebb@i2pn2.org>
References: <v9gv4k$4sc4$1@dont-email.me>
 <561f876601b0329c0260bac26f8b6dfb6e28647f@i2pn2.org>
 <v9h5af$9jn6$1@dont-email.me>
 <bdfcf881b9a9ce7e2bc197339d14a01beae1116d@i2pn2.org>
 <XYucnXqdgeWiVSH7nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <b8a96bbfe0516cf99b6f38c23fb4eccc3810ee7e@i2pn2.org>
 <v9krc5$uqhs$1@dont-email.me> <v9l7hf$vao1$3@dont-email.me>
 <v9laed$113gd$2@dont-email.me>
 <EbecnaOe1ajC1yP7nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <v9llh9$12l6c$2@dont-email.me> <v9mt9h$1bdeu$3@dont-email.me>
 <P6-cnWf3Z5zzLyL7nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <v9od8b$1i745$1@dont-email.me>
 <b5c6b0c3bf38cd73a9b84b7d96e2d45a53404dde@i2pn2.org>
 <v9of3l$1i745$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 21:37:30 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2803751"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v9of3l$1i745$3@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6256
Lines: 130

On 8/16/24 5:08 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/16/2024 3:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 8/16/24 4:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>> I break my points down to the basic facts of the semantics
>>> of the x86 language and the basic facts of the semantics
>>> of the C programming.
>>>
>>> I can't ever get to the point of the computer science
>>> because reviewers disagree with these basic facts.
>>
>> No, the problem is that your "facts" just disagree with the computere 
>> science you claim to be doing.
>>
> 
> We never get anywhere near the computer science because
> people disagree with 100% concrete fully specified semantics.
> If they disagree with arithmetic we can never get to algebra.

If you aren't talking about computer science, then you are using a lot 
of words FROM computer science, which bring in their implications.



> 
>>>
>>> void DDD()
>>> {
>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>> }
>>>
>>> _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]
>>
>> Which is NOT a program 
> 
> I am talking above the behavior of the C function it is
> dishonest to change the subject as any basis of rebuttal.

But the "C Function" doesn't HAVE "Behavior", because it isn't a 
complete thing to have behavior.

That is like asking about the color of Truth or the Weight of a Lie.

Behavior is of full entities, in this case PROGRAMS (or subprograms) 
which include all of the code they use.

So, the dishonest one is YOU to be trying to talk about something 
invalid, and then we can look back as see this is essentially the same 
form of input that you have claimed for years is isomorphic to the Linz 
Proof of the Halting Problem.

THat is shown to be just a lie.


> 
>> and can not be the complete input to HHH, in fact, HHH takes the whole 
>> of memory being uses as its "finite string" input, or your problem is 
>> just falsely stated.
>>
> 
> The question is can DDD emulated by HHH according to the
> semantics of the x86 language even stop running without
> being aborted?

Except that isn't a valid question, as the x86 language defines that the 
call instruction needs to be followed to code you aren't giving.

Part of your problem is you don't understand that you are trying to 
define the behavior of the function DDD, but then trying to define it in 
terms of one abstract behavior of HHH, but then use a DIFFERENT abstract 
behavior of HHH to decide it. The problem is, that by the fundamental 
rules, the way you have built you system, the two must be the same, so 
your logic falls apart in the contradiciton.

HHH needs to decide on the behavior of DDD when it call the HHH that is 
assumed to be there.

> 
> Ben is the only one that did not attempt some kind of
> dishonesty on this question.
> 
>>>
>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>>      If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>>>      until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
>>>      stop running unless aborted then
>>
>> Right, and to statisfy this, since the only simulation that is 
>> "Correct" for the determining of the behavior of a program is a 
>> COMPLETE behaivior 
> 
> UNTIL MEANS LIMITED.
> IT DOES NOT MEAN YOUR MISCONCEPTION OF "COMPLETE"

But "Its simulated D" refers to the FULL BEHAIVOR of the PROGRAM D.

That can either be determined by just running D, or COMPLETELY 
simulating D, either of which will show that H was just wrong.

> 
> YOU DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND THAT AN INFINITE
> EXECUTION CANNOT BE COMPLETE. YOU AND OTHERS
> ALWAYS USE THE TERM "COMPLETE" INCORRECTLY

But there IS a definitioin of a complete emulation of a non-halting 
program, and that is a emulation that continues forever. That *IS* complete.

> 
> THIS IS NO ORDINARY MISTAKE IT IS A STUPID MISTAKE.
> 

No, it is just showing your ignorance and the lack of understanding of 
things infinite.

The infinite set of the Natural Numbers 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, ... all the way 
for the full Aleph_0 numbers, is a COMPLETE set.

A simulation that will run for an aleph_0 number of steps, IS COMPLETE.

A truth established by an infinite sequence of truth preserving 
opetations IS TRUE.

Your mind is just too small.