Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts?
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 10:41:06 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 150
Message-ID: <v5ggmi$21nkc$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v56n8h$3pr25$1@dont-email.me> <v56ntj$onl3$7@i2pn2.org> <v56ps2$3q4ea$1@dont-email.me> <v56sk3$p1du$2@i2pn2.org> <v56tfv$3ql1v$2@dont-email.me> <v570n5$onl4$11@i2pn2.org> <v571lc$3rrgk$1@dont-email.me> <v57603$onl3$12@i2pn2.org> <v576cg$3soh6$2@dont-email.me> <v576nv$onl3$14@i2pn2.org> <v5775h$3soh6$5@dont-email.me> <v58r5s$9j01$1@dont-email.me> <v597og$brmn$3@dont-email.me> <v5b7cm$qtn6$1@dont-email.me> <v5btmn$v0vb$6@dont-email.me> <v5e3df$1gco9$1@dont-email.me> <v5egoe$1ikpr$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 09:41:07 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a586d73ea35a54216332317194c361aa";
	logging-data="2154124"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+AYV9pobGCteen/2X7LZSp"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:kY3myctMuuNEY59duJAwZ8x265U=
Bytes: 7145

On 2024-06-25 13:29:50 +0000, olcott said:

> On 6/25/2024 4:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-06-24 13:52:23 +0000, olcott said:
>> 
>>> On 6/24/2024 2:31 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-06-23 13:25:36 +0000, olcott said:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 6/23/2024 4:50 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-06-22 19:03:13 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 6/22/2024 1:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/22/24 2:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/22/2024 1:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/22/24 1:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/22/2024 12:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/22/24 12:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    HHH0(DDD);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The input to HHH0(DDD) includes itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The input to HHH1(DDD) DOES NOT include itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is stipulated that correct emulation is defined by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics of the x86 programming language and nothing else.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> And thus, your emulation traces show that your "Simulating Halt 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Deciders" do not do a "Correct Simulation"
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Apparently your ADD preventing you from paying close attention
>>>>>>>>>>> to ALL of my words.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> *Function names adapted to correspond to my updated paper*
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>    H0(DDD);
>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> *When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct*
>>>>>>>>>>> *emulation is the semantics of the x86 programming language*
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> *When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct*
>>>>>>>>>>> *emulation is the semantics of the x86 programming language*
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> *When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct*
>>>>>>>>>>> *emulation is the semantics of the x86 programming language*
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> *When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct*
>>>>>>>>>>> *emulation is the semantics of the x86 programming language*
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> *When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct*
>>>>>>>>>>> *emulation is the semantics of the x86 programming language*
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> then we see that when DDD is correctly emulated by H0 that
>>>>>>>>>>> its call to H0(DDD) cannot possibly return.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Since your H0 has never demonstrated that is actually DOES the correct 
>>>>>>>>>> simulation per your stipulation,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Liar
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Then where is it?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct emulation
>>>>>>> is the semantics of the x86 programming language then we see that
>>>>>>> when DDD is correctly emulated by H0 that its call to H0(DDD)
>>>>>>> cannot possibly return.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Semantics of the x86 programming language does not specifiy emulation
>>>>>> or correctness of emulation.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> WRONG!
>>>> 
>>>> Unless you point where in Intel's documentation emulation or correctness
>>>> of emulation is specified you have no basis to say "WRONG".
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Not at all. That is the same as saying that 2 + 3 = 5
>>> is wrong until proven by PA.
>> 
>> If you want to claim that 2 + 3 = 5 you must show some basis for the claim.
>> One obvious source of such basis is Peano Arithmetic. Likewise, if you say
>> "WRONG" you must show some basis for the claim. When the statement claimed
>> "WRONG" is about x86 programming language, an sobvious source for such basis
>> is Intel's documentation.
>> 
>>>>> Otherwise we could say that for the decimal integers
>>>>> 2 + 3 = 17 and the semantics of arithmetic does not disagree.
>> 
>> No, you can only say that you don't know any disageement between them.
>> Without a proof threse is a possibility of an unknown disagreement.
>> 
>>>> I can believe you couls but I would not.
>>>> 
>>>>> The semantics of arithmetic agrees that for the decimal
>>>>> integers 2 + 3 = 5.
>>>> 
>>>> Intel's processors seem to agree, too. But I havn't checked every one.
>>> 
>>> _DDD()
>>> [00002172] 55               push ebp      ; housekeeping
>>> [00002173] 8bec             mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
>>> [00002175] 6872210000       push 00002172 ; push DDD
>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff       call 000015d2 ; call H0(DDD)
>>> [0000217f] 83c404           add esp,+04
>>> [00002182] 5d               pop ebp
>>> [00002183] c3               ret
>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>>> 
>>> The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated
>>> by H0 cannot possibly return.
>> 
>> What is shown above does not prove that the call to 15d3 does not
>> return, nor whether there is H0 or HHH0 or something else at that
>> location.
>> 
> 
> It is stipulated that DDD is correctly emulated by the
> H0 at machine address 000015d2.

There is no such stipulation in the above text. The C code specifies
and a comment in the machine code claims that H0 is called but don't
say what H0 does.

> It is stipulated the the correct simulation is ruled by
> the semantics of the x86 programming language.

That does not fully define "correct simulation" but may specify enough
of it to contradict the previous stipulation.

> *This conclusively proves*
> The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated
> by H0 *CANNOT POSSIBLY RETURN*

It proves nothing if no proof is shown.

> I am unwilling to talk about anything else with you until
> you agree to this.

Unlikely to ever happen, especially about stipulations.

-- 
Mikko