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: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts?
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 19:41:43 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v5i8vn$17ej1$4@i2pn2.org>
References: <v56n8h$3pr25$1@dont-email.me> <v58ql8$9g3i$1@dont-email.me>
 <v597ju$brmn$2@dont-email.me> <v5b7f8$qu74$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5btit$v0vb$5@dont-email.me> <v5bub0$vagk$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5e3ou$1ge18$2@dont-email.me> <v5eg5j$1ikpr$3@dont-email.me>
 <v5ghfv$21s9r$1@dont-email.me> <v5h2vs$24jbd$3@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 23:41:43 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1292897"; 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: <v5h2vs$24jbd$3@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5028
Lines: 107

On 6/26/24 8:53 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/26/2024 2:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-06-25 13:19:46 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 6/25/2024 4:48 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-06-24 14:03:12 +0000, immibis said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 24/06/24 15:50, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/24/2024 2:32 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-06-23 13:23:10 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2024 4:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> When the head line has the words "these verified facts" the 
>>>>>>>>> message should
>>>>>>>>> first tell what facts are "these verified facts" and who 
>>>>>>>>> verified them
>>>>>>>>> before any further discussion.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is a verified fact that 2 + 3 = 5 according to the semantics
>>>>>>>> of arithmetic. Anyone having an opinion that contradicts this is 
>>>>>>>> WRONG.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sure, but that was not the first thing mentioned in the initial 
>>>>>>> message.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> int P(ptr2 x)
>>>>>> {
>>>>>>   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>>>>>   if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>     HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>   return Halt_Status;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The call from P to H(P,P) when P is correctly emulated
>>>>>> by H cannot possibly return.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The call from P to H(P,P) when P is correctly emulated
>>>>>> by H1 DOES return.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Verified fact: the emulation is incorrect
>>>>
>>>> But which emulation? By H or by H1?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Both of them are correct.
>>> Because P never calls H1(P,P) and P does call H(P,P)
>>> the call from P to H(P,P) returns in the first case
>>> and cannot possibly return in the second case.
>>
>> Obviously false. The meaning of H(P,P) is determined by the text of H.
>> The meaning is fully determined by the complier that complies to the
>> x86 code and the semantics of x86. If one simulator interpretes the
>> x86 code differently from another simulator then one of them does not
>> follow the x86 semantics and is therefore incorrect.

By that logic, ALL deciders are "Correct" as they answer what they 
answer. That seems to be the sort of logic system you want.

What H is SUPPOSED to do, and the meaning of the input to H, is 
determined by the SPECIFICATION of H.

>>
> 
> _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
> the x86 emulator H0(DDD) at machine address 0000217a
> when DDD is correctly emulated by H0 cannot possibly return.

And "Correct Emulation" of an input is only really correct if carried to 
completion, because that IS the semantics of the x86 instruction set. 
Otherwise it is just a PARTIAL emulation.

> 
> When DDD is correctly emulated by H0 then H0 must emulate itself
> emulating DDD. This derives recursive emulation.

So, is H0 defined to be an UNCONDITIONAL emulator, or are you going to 
claim at some point that it can stop and still meet its requirements.

> 
> When DDD is correctly emulated by H1 then H1 NEED NOT emulate itself
> emulating DDD. This DOES NOT derive recursive emulation.

But, if H0 never stops emulating its input, then H1 will never reach the 
end either.

So, if H1 can see an end, then H0 MUST have returned. If H0 didn't see 
that in its emulation, it must have aborted it too soon.

> 
> *You probably lack suffcient technical competence*
> 

YOU clearly don't have the needed technical competence.