Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<561f876601b0329c0260bac26f8b6dfb6e28647f@i2pn2.org> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
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: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2024 22:29:51 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <561f876601b0329c0260bac26f8b6dfb6e28647f@i2pn2.org> References: <v9gv4k$4sc4$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2024 02:29:52 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="2494910"; 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: <v9gv4k$4sc4$1@dont-email.me> Bytes: 2955 Lines: 55 On 8/13/24 8:52 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] > > A simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH according to > the semantics of the x86 language is necessarily correct. > Nope, it is just the correct PARTIAL emulation of the first N instructions of DDD, and not of all of DDD, in particular, it says NOTHING about the behavior of the rest of the instructions of DDD. > A correct simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH is > sufficient to correctly predict the behavior of an unlimited > simulation. Nope, if a HHH returns to its caller, the correct emulation of the DDD that calls that HHH when correctly emulated by an unlimited emulator WILL reach its final instruction, as it will see DDD call HHH, then HHH emulate N instructions of a copy of DDD, then abort its emulation and return to its caller, which is DDD, which will return. > > Termination analyzers / halt deciders are only required > to correctly predict the behavior of their inputs. > > Termination analyzers / halt deciders are only required > to correctly predict the behavior of their inputs, thus > the behavior of non-inputs is outside of their domain. > And that behavior that they are REQUIRED to report on is the behavior of the direct exectuion of the machine the input FULLY represents. THAT IS DEFINITION. If the "halt decider" tries to consider anything else that doesn't give the exact same answer as the behavior of the input, it just isn't a halt decider. THAT IS DEFINITION. Sorry, you are just showing your self-made ignorance.