Path: ...!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 15:33:38 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 116
Message-ID: <v5pr33$31tt$2@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>
 <v5pn47$27nl$1@dont-email.me> <v5ppnb$1gd9e$5@i2pn2.org>
 <v5pq4l$31tt$1@dont-email.me> <v5pqji$1gd9d$2@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 22:33:39 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="762b9261836a2c687f6b79db999518fc";
	logging-data="100285"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX189RT1iHl6V8FFZ0nFVdkaC"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:XqBc3h01zNIrK2Swd+jIrSdOc5M=
In-Reply-To: <v5pqji$1gd9d$2@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6054

On 6/29/2024 3:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/29/24 4:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/29/2024 3:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> 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. 
>>
>> In other words you are trying to get away with claiming
>> that professor Sipser made a stupid mistake:
>>
>> H correctly simulates its input D until H correctly determines
>> that its simulated D would never stop running unless aborted
> 
> Nope, he just laid a trap that you fell into.
> 

He could not have possibly laid any trap you dumb bunny.
All of the words were my own verbatim words. It took me
two years to compose those exact words.

> The ONLY simulation that Professor Sipser accepts as correct, is one 
> that shows EXACTLY the behavior of the machine being simulated.
> 

So you are stupid enough to believe that professor Sipser
is stupid enough to to try and get away with disagreeing
with the semantics of the x86 language?

*I don't buy it. You are not that stupid you are a liar*

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