Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.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,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the
 semantics of the x86 language
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2024 12:17:29 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 120
Message-ID: <v5pfj9$adt$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v5pbjf$55h$1@dont-email.me> <v5pdmk$1gd9e$1@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2024 19:17:30 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="762b9261836a2c687f6b79db999518fc";
	logging-data="10685"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19b8taIZu9ewK8V3NlgPWEs"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:KM0qnf7EK+Lg+ksyS9X6U8Xbnj0=
In-Reply-To: <v5pdmk$1gd9e$1@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5557

On 6/29/2024 11:45 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/29/24 12:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>> People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with
>> the semantics of the x86 language. That is isomorphic to
>> trying to get away with disagreeing with arithmetic.
> 
> Nope, we are not disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language, we 
> are disagreeing with your misunderstanding of how it works.
> 
>>
>> typedef void (*ptr)();
>> int H0(ptr P);
>>
>> void Infinite_Loop()
>> {
>>    HERE: goto HERE;
>> }
>>
>> void Infinite_Recursion()
>> {
>>    Infinite_Recursion();
>> }
>>
>> void DDD()
>> {
>>    H0(DDD);
>> }
>>
>> int main()
>> {
>>    H0(Infinite_Loop);
>>    H0(Infinite_Recursion);
>>    H0(DDD);
>> }
>>
>> 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.
> 
> No the x86 language "knows" NOTHING about H0 being a x86 emulator. It is 
> just a function that maybe happens to be a partial x86 emulator, but 
> that is NOT a fundamental result of it being H0.
> 
>>
>> When this is construed as non-halting criteria then simulating
>> termination analyzer H0 is correct to reject these inputs as
>> non-halting by returning 0 to its caller.
> 
> It is construed as non-halting BECAUSE it has been shown that your H0 
> *WILL* terminate its PARTIAL emulation of the code it is emulating and 
> returning.
> 
>>
>> Simulating termination analyzers must report on the behavior
>> that their finite string input specifies thus H0 must report
>> that DDD correctly emulated by H0 remains stuck in recursive
>> simulation.
> 
> Right, so H0 is REQUIRED to return, and thus if the termination analyser 
> knows that H0 is a termination analyzer it knows that the call to H0 
> MUST return, and thus DDD must be a terminating program.
> 
> An H0 that doesn't know this, and can't figure out that H0 will return, 
> but just keeps emulating H0 emulating its input will just fail to meet 
> its own requirement to return.
> 
>>
>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>      If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>>      until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
>>      stop running unless aborted then
>>
>>      H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>      specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
> 
> Right, and the only definition Professor Sipser uses for "Correct 
> Simulation" is a simulation that EXACTLY REPRODUCES the behavior of the 
> directly executed program represented by the input. Your H doesn't do 
> that, nor correctly predicts the behavior of such a simulation of the 
> input (since that behavior is to halt) so it can never proper avail 
> itself of the second paragraph, so does so erroneously getting the wrong 
> answer.
> 
>>
>> People are trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics
>> of the x86 language by disagreeing that
>>
>> The call from DDD to HHH(DDD) when N steps of DDD are correctly
>> emulated by any pure function x86 emulator HHH cannot possibly
>> return.
> 
> Except that the "N Steps of DDD correctly emulated" is NOT the 
> definition of the "behavior" of the input DDD.
> 
> "inputs" Do not have "behavoir", that is a property of a program, so the 
> input only "represents" that program, in this case the program DDD.
> 

*According to the professor Sipser approved criteria YES IT IS*

The call from DDD to HHH(DDD) when N steps of DDD are correctly
emulated by any pure function x86 emulator HHH cannot possibly
return.

_DDD()
[00002172] 55               push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec             mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000       push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff       call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404           add esp,+04
[00002182] 5d               pop ebp
[00002183] c3               ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]

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