Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.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 14:25:59 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 77
Message-ID: <v5pn47$27nl$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v5pbjf$55h$1@dont-email.me> <v5pdmk$1gd9e$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v5pfj9$adt$1@dont-email.me> <v5pi18$1gd9e$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v5pifq$1hae$1@dont-email.me> <v5pkal$1gd9e$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v5pkss$1nkd$1@dont-email.me> <v5pm48$1gd9e$4@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 21:26:00 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="762b9261836a2c687f6b79db999518fc";
	logging-data="73461"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/n40yORnarA95kA9fjTecn"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Ly+Cm6eo0hM09403xCk0ggTqQSc=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v5pm48$1gd9e$4@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 4174

On 6/29/2024 2:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/29/24 2:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/29/2024 1:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/29/24 2:06 PM, olcott wrote:

<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>

>>>>
>>>> *N steps of correct simulation are specified*
>>>> H correctly simulates its input D until H
>>>> H correctly simulates its input D until H
>>>> H correctly simulates its input D until H
>>>> H correctly simulates its input D until H
>>>
>>> Which does not determine the ACTUAL behavor
>>>
>>
>> _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]
>>
>> That you already know that it does prove that DDD correctly
>> emulated by HHH would never stop running unless aborted
>> or out-of-memory error
>>
>> *proves that you are trying to get away with a bald-faced lie*
>> I really hope that you repent before it is too late.
>>
>>
> 
> Nope, just shows your stupidity, as the above code has NO defined 
> behavior as it accesses code that is not defined by it.
> 

*Its behavior is completely defined by*
(a) The finite string x86 machine code that includes
     the recursive emulation call from DDD to HHH(DDD).

(b) The semantics of the x86 language.

(c) That HHH is an x86 emulator that correctly emulates
     N steps of DDD.

*I am not infallible so I may have left out a detail*

*These facts are deduced from the above facts*
(1) 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.

(2) (1) means that DDD correctly simulated by HHH would
     never stop running unless aborted.

I don't understand why you risk your salvation
by trying to get away with such a bald-faced lie.

Those the believe salvation cannot be lost may
correct in the God sees their future behavior thus
never granting them salvation in the first place.

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