Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 11:24:08 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 126
Message-ID: <v5hfb8$26j79$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v4vrfg$2793f$1@dont-email.me> <v58m12$8mmo$1@dont-email.me>
 <v59797$brmn$1@dont-email.me> <v5b7nv$qvrb$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5btf3$v0vb$4@dont-email.me> <v5chru$10816$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v5cn01$149dc$1@dont-email.me> <v5ebvr$1hs89$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5efod$1ikpr$1@dont-email.me> <v5ejau$1iq57$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5eup8$1lar1$2@dont-email.me> <v5gidq$221q3$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5h34g$24jbd$4@dont-email.me> <v5h5oq$1g3$1@news.muc.de>
 <v5h765$25q9l$1@dont-email.me> <v5he3t$1c0t$1@news.muc.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 18:24:09 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="28c20839daaf0f4c95806d952d7f722b";
	logging-data="2313449"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+XnD8oK5JL+GJ9r6JxPMQC"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:0o93kUkCXw1yUdBoj33cGpWAbdY=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v5he3t$1c0t$1@news.muc.de>
Bytes: 6610

On 6/26/2024 11:03 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> [ Followup-To: set ]
> 
> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 6/26/2024 8:40 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 6/26/2024 3:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
> 
>>> [ .... ]
> 
>>>>> The relevant area of software engineering is testing. The usual
>>>>> attitude of software engineers is that a program is accpted when it
>>>>> has been sufficiently tested and passed all tests. Consequently, an
>>>>> important part of sofware work is the design of tests.
> 
>>>>> In the current context the program to be tested is a halting decider.
> 
>>>> *NO IT IS NOT. H0 IS ONLY AN X86 EMULATOR*
>>>> After you quit lying about the behavior of DDD correctly
>>>> emulated by H0 then we can move on to the next point.
> 
>>> I think the problem is rather your calling every program or function you
>>> talk about H, or H^, or HH, or HHH, or H0, or H1.  Usually, in the past,
>>> you have meant purported halting deciders by these names.  Now you're
>>> saying that you mean an X86 emulator.  Where and when did this change
>>> happen, and how is anybody else supposed to know what you mean by
>>> particular uses of these names?
> 
>> When I ask people to consider the behavior of DDD
>> correctly emulated by H0 according to the semantics
>> of the x86 programming language it really does seem
>> to be the strawman deception when they try to get away
>> with saying that it must be the behavior of the directly
>> executed DDD().
> 
> I don't think so.  People's eyes glaze over when they see yet another one
> of your posts, virtually the same as so many others, and cannot
> reasonably be expected to read and understand every last word.
> 
> Maybe if you restricted yourself to using E... when you mean an emulator,
> and H... when you mean a purported halting decider, there would be less
> confusion.
> 

Emulating termination analyzer H is inherently an emulator.
It really should not be that hard to pay attention to that
unless one only cares about rebuttal and thus does not care
about truth.

> Given how most people here are mathematically trained, perhaps if you
> started a typical post with "Suppose E is a code emulator ...", and other
> prerequisites there would be less confusion still.
> 

OK that sounds like a reasonable way to avoid information overload.

>> _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]
> 
>> It is clear that the semantics of the x86 language specifies
>> that DDD correctly emulated by H0 at machine address 0000217a
>> will continue to repeat the first four instructions of DDD
>> until out-of-memory error.
> 
> It is not at all clear, given how murky the code at 15d2 is, and what you
> mean by "correctly emulated".
> 

Of course I must mean jumping up and down yelling and screaming
and not be referring to anything like what an x86 emulator does.

>> When we add that the outermost directly executed H0 can abort
>> its simulation as soon as the behavior of its input matches
>> the the infinite recursion behavior pattern it remains true
>> that the call from the emulated DDD to the emulated H0(DDD)
>> cannot possibly return.
> 
> It might do.  Convincing argument that this is the case (i.e. a proof)
> has not been forthcoming.
> 

We cannot prove differential calculus to anyone not knowing
how to count to ten.

That DDD correctly emulated by H0 must continue to repeat
its first four instructions is self-evident true to anyone
knowing what an x86 emulator is and having sufficient basic
knowledge of the x86 programming language.

I was very surprised to find out that one person having a PhD
in computer science said that they had hardly any experience
with programming.

The CS courses that fulfilled the requirements for a BSCS degree
at my university had quite a bit of programming. One of the projects
for the data structures course was to write a LISP interpreter that
could do car, cdr and cons.
https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_node/eintr/car-cdr-_0026-cons.html 


These expressions could be arbitrarily complex. I was one of
two students out of fifty that got the project in on time. The
other one was my co-worker at the US Army Corps of engineers.
He and I got a 100% grade.

>> *That people consistently lie about this is quite annoying*
>> *yet not nearly so much when their lie is easily exposed*
> 
> I haven't seen other people here lying.
> 

When they say that I am wrong knowing that they do not understand
what I am saying this would be a lie.


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