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,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 16:10:19 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v5ppnb$1gd9e$5@i2pn2.org>
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>
 <v5pn47$27nl$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2024 20:10:19 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1586478"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v5pn47$27nl$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 6160
Lines: 133

On 6/29/24 3:25 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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>



But that only applies if H determines a CORRECT SIMULATION per HIS 
definition does not halt
..
That means the DIRECT EXECUTION of the program represented by the input 
does not halt, since that is the DEFINITION of the results of a correct 
simuation.

That also requires that the simulation does not stop until it reaches a 
final state. You H neither does that nor correctly determines that 
(since it does halt) thus you can never use the second paragraph to be 
allowed to abort, even though you do anyway, which is why you get the 
wrong answer.

> 
>>>>>
>>>>> *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).

But by the semantics of the x86 langugage, the call to HHH does NOT do a 
"recursive simulation" since that is not a term in that language.

The Call to HHH just cause the

> 
> (b) The semantics of the x86 language.
> 
> (c) That HHH is an x86 emulator that correctly emulates
>      N steps of DDD.

Which isn't an ACTUALY correct emulation, but only a PARTIAL correct 
emulation (since correct emulation implies EVERY instruction but a 
terminal one is followed by the next instruction).

The key fact is that PARTIAL emulation doesn't reveal the future of the 
behavior past the point of the emulation. But the "Behavior" of the 
program represtented by the input, does.

Remember, "Behavior" is an attribute of programs,  not "inputs", inputs 
only point to the behavior of the program they represent. Programs do 
not "stop" just because some emulation of them ceased.

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

Like FACTS.

> 
> *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.
> 

No, the CALL DOES return (if HHH is a decider), that return is just not 
emulated by HHH, which being just a PARTIAL emulation doesn't reveal the 
behavior after it aborts its emulation.

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

Nope, It means that either you have an HHH that never stops its 
emulation, and thus fail to be the decider you claim, or that it does 
and doesn't do

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

But it isn't a lie. It is the truth.

You just don't seem to understand that knowing just part of what is 
correct isn't knowing ALL of what is correct.

> 
> 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.
> 

That is one theory.

Doesn't seem it really matters to you, since it is clear you were never 
came close to salvation, as you don't accept God's word as his word, but 
have decided you get to pick and choose from it.