Path: ...!feed.opticnetworks.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Simulating termination analyzers by dummies --- the only reply
 until addressed
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2024 12:48:18 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 81
Message-ID: <v4v5l2$236bi$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v4oaqu$f9p5$1@dont-email.me> <v4os9e$i70m$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4p9mb$lavj$1@dont-email.me> <v4qe53$a0nm$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v4qn65$10qh6$1@dont-email.me> <v4qnkf$a0nm$5@i2pn2.org>
 <v4qpvo$10qh6$2@dont-email.me> <v4qrmd$a0nm$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v4qrr8$15beg$1@dont-email.me> <v4qsav$a0nn$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v4qtaa$15gc5$1@dont-email.me> <v4qu3p$a0nm$7@i2pn2.org>
 <v4quti$15nn8$1@dont-email.me> <v4rrge$bivn$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v4s1l0$1boeu$6@dont-email.me> <v4seq5$cbcu$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v4sfuo$1enie$1@dont-email.me> <v4tf26$ddeo$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v4tfsj$1oosn$1@dont-email.me> <v4tgg7$ddeo$8@i2pn2.org>
 <v4th4c$1oosn$2@dont-email.me> <v4u76n$ec9m$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v4umjc$1vpm0$6@dont-email.me> <v4v5bm$fhqs$7@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2024 19:48:19 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c0498080d6b8a2710b4ab7de903a0762";
	logging-data="2201970"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/HQ7TQ5A9SBB70Z0pK5KYL"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:2L4JtfUZFLIH4G6vojvuM9aPWjA=
In-Reply-To: <v4v5bm$fhqs$7@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5275

On 6/19/2024 12:43 PM, joes wrote:
> Am Wed, 19 Jun 2024 08:31:24 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>> On 6/19/2024 4:08 AM, joes wrote:
>>> Am Tue, 18 Jun 2024 21:51:56 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>> On 6/18/2024 9:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/18/24 10:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/18/2024 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/18/24 1:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/18/2024 12:06 PM, joes wrote:
> 
>>>>> Terminating is a property of the actual machine, and not a simulation
>>>>> of it.
> Still true.
> 
>>>> Thus according to your faulty reasoning when the source-code of a C
>>>> program is simulated by interpreter this is mere nonsense gibberish
>>>> having nothing to do what the behavior that this source-code
>>>> specifies.
>>> YOUR partial decider makes everything halt, even that which doesn't.
>>> So yes, it can't simulate infinite loops.
>> My partial decider makes everything stop running this is not at all the
>> same as halting. Novices get very confused about this.
> Your nonsimulator halts even when given nonterminating input.
> 
>>>>> You could say the SIMULATION didn't terminate normally, but you can't
>>>>> say the machine didn't or even the Turing Machine Description, as you
>>>>> could give that exact same TMD to a real UTM and find out the actual
>>>>> behaviof or the input.
>>>> Sure you can otherwise interpreters of source-code would be a bogus
>>>> concept.
>>> When I write an infinite loop, I want it to be interpreted as an
>>> infinite loop. Your H0 is bogus.
> [deflection snipped]
> 
>>>>> You just have lost track of the defintions of what is REALITY (the
>>>>> actual behavior of the machine) and what is just imagination.
>> (a) If the simulation of the x86 machine language of the
>> function does not prove the actual behavior that this finite string
>> specifies then source-code interpreters are a bogus concept.
>> (b) source-code interpreters are NOT a bogus concept.
> Your H0 is not an interpreter. It aborts infinite loops.
> 
>>>>>> Every C programmer that knows what an x86 emulator is knows that
>>>>>> when H0 emulates the machine language of Infinite_Loop,
>>>>>> Infinite_Recursion,
>>>>>> and DDD that it must abort these emulations so that itself can
>>>>>> terminate normally.
>>>>> Which doesn't mean the program DDD needs to be abort to have it halt.
>>>> The verified that that it does need to be aborted contradicts your
>>>> nonsense to the contrary.
>>> [The verification that it ... ?]
>>> If H0 halts, so does DDD (which only calls it).
>> My partial decider makes everything stop running this is not at all the
>> same as halting. Novices get very confused about this.
> I was talking about DDD. It calls H0, which shall halt. Then DDD returns,
> having terminated.
> 

void DDD()
{
   H0(DDD);
}

_DDD()
[000020a2] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[000020a3] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[000020a5] 68a2200000 push 000020a2 ; push DDD
[000020aa] e8f3f9ffff call 00001aa2 ; call H0
[000020af] 83c404     add esp,+04   ; housekeeping
[000020b2] 5d         pop ebp       ; housekeeping
[000020b3] c3         ret           ; never gets here
Size in bytes:(0018) [000020b3]

Exactly which step of DDD emulated by H0 was emulated
incorrectly such that this emulation would be complete?
AKA DDD emulated by H0 reaches machine address [000020b3]

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer