Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<v5q3an$4rvs$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!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 17:54:14 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 146 Message-ID: <v5q3an$4rvs$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> <v5pn47$27nl$1@dont-email.me> <v5ppnb$1gd9e$5@i2pn2.org> <v5pq4l$31tt$1@dont-email.me> <v5pqji$1gd9d$2@i2pn2.org> <v5pr33$31tt$2@dont-email.me> <v5ptp3$1hdtc$1@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2024 00:54:15 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6b752116cbce9cc9180c7aac2a5283cd"; logging-data="159740"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+OZb4xld1xJGqwsDmBI4Dp" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:6QTnc8KnQd3k4DkVybEenivejaw= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <v5ptp3$1hdtc$1@i2pn2.org> Bytes: 7288 On 6/29/2024 4:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/29/24 4:33 PM, olcott wrote: >> 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. >> > > Right, and he could have seen the errors in your apparent > misunderstanding of the words and accepted them, knowing that they were > actually meaningless. > >>> 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? > > The question said NOTHING of the x86 language, so it doesn't matter. > Liar Liar pants on fire !!! Liar Liar pants on fire !!! Liar Liar pants on fire !!! Liar Liar pants on fire !!! Liar Liar pants on fire !!! _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] 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. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer