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: Liar detector: Fred, Richard, Joes and Alan --- Ben's agreement
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2024 22:08:29 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <6434ba9592399c1d4d21ccc4ad227ac3860476e5@i2pn2.org>
References: <v644pn$29t4h$3@dont-email.me> <v67028$2t9el$1@dont-email.me>
 <v68b3f$2n56v$5@dont-email.me> <v68ocd$39dkv$5@dont-email.me>
 <v68pfo$2n56v$7@dont-email.me> <v68rnv$39tml$2@dont-email.me>
 <v68tvd$3ac9t$1@dont-email.me> <v68uj0$3ahel$1@dont-email.me>
 <v694k4$3bevk$1@dont-email.me> <v69502$3bh3f$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6b1k4$3odj5$1@dont-email.me> <v6bf7r$3qiio$2@dont-email.me>
 <v6bm5v$3rj8n$1@dont-email.me> <v6bmoe$3ri0l$2@dont-email.me>
 <v6bnt2$3rj8n$3@dont-email.me> <v6brfj$3skuk$2@dont-email.me>
 <v6c3vh$3ttem$1@dont-email.me> <v6c539$3u2mj$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6dda0$7s8u$1@dont-email.me> <v6e67v$bbcb$4@dont-email.me>
 <v6gss2$t87a$1@dont-email.me> <v6gv65$to0m$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6h2li$ud7p$1@dont-email.me> <v6h2rm$ue7s$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6h3cu$ud7p$2@dont-email.me> <v6h83q$vag9$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6ikgb$19f5g$1@dont-email.me> <v6jgjo$1ctoi$4@dont-email.me>
 <v6lckp$1qi9e$1@dont-email.me> <v6m2qq$1tj30$6@dont-email.me>
 <v6nvc8$2blka$1@dont-email.me> <v6opg3$2fuva$6@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2024 02:08:29 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2973854"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v6opg3$2fuva$6@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5512
Lines: 108

On 7/11/24 10:16 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/11/2024 1:50 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-07-10 13:37:30 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 7/10/2024 2:18 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-07-09 14:14:16 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 7/9/2024 1:14 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-07-08 17:36:58 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 7/8/2024 11:16 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>> Op 08.jul.2024 om 18:07 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Try to show how infinity is one cycle too soon.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You believe that two equals infinity.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> void Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>    HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> void Infinite_Recursion()
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>    Infinite_Recursion();
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Two cycles is enough to correctly determine that none
>>>>>>> of the above functions correctly emulated by HHH can
>>>>>>> possibly halt.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That you don't see this is ignorance or deception.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is an important detail that determines whether an infinite
>>>>>> execution can be inferred. That is best illustrated by the following
>>>>>> examples:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> void Finite_Loop()
>>>>>> {
>>>>>>   int x = 10000;
>>>>>> HERE:
>>>>>>   if (x > 0) {
>>>>>>     x--;
>>>>>>     goto HERE;
>>>>>>   }
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> void Finite_Recursion(int n)
>>>>>> {
>>>>>>   if (n > 0) {
>>>>>>     Finite_Recursion(n + 1);
>>>>>>   }
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>> {
>>>>>>   HHH(DDD); // HHH detects recursive simulation and then simulates 
>>>>>> no more
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The important difference is that in my examples there is a 
>>>>>> conditional
>>>>>> instruction that can (and does) prevent infinite exectuion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When we ask:
>>>>> Does the call from DDD emulated by HHH to HHH(DDD) return?
>>>>
>>>> Why would anyone ask that? A question should make clear its topic.
>>>> Instead one could ask whether HHH can fully emulate DDD if that is
>>>> what one wants to know. Or one may think that HHH and DDD are so
>>>> unimteresting that there is no point to ask anyting about them.
>>>
>>> A correct emulator can correctly any correct x86 instructions.
>>> When it emulates non-halting code then itself does not halt.
>>
>> Not quite right but should be easy to fix. There should be a verb 
>> before "any",
>> for example "execute". Of course there still is a probelm with the 
>> meaning
>> "any correct x86 instructions". Intel may publish a new x86 processor 
>> that has
>> instructios that the emulator cannot know but are nevertheless correct 
>> x86
>> instructions because Intel says so. In the second sentence "it" should 
>> be used
>> istead of "itself".
>>
> 
> Intel has already done this and they call this x64.
> A 1907 Model-T Ford cannot have upgrades and still
> be a 1907 model-T Ford. Likewise for the x86 language.
> 

Nope, there were multiple levels of the x86 language. After all, the x 
refers to a placehold for a lot of different version of the language.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86_instruction_listings for a summary 
of some of the different things that have been call x86.

In modern times, x86 tends to refere to the common core of the 32-bit 
instruction set (and not the earlier 16-bit set), but even that had some 
variations that we commonly included when compiling to the "x86" 
instruction set unless you specifically named an older processor.