| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v5q6c2$1hdtc$2@i2pn2.org> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!news.misty.com!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 19:46:10 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <v5q6c2$1hdtc$2@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> <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> <v5q3an$4rvs$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 23:46:10 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="1619884"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird In-Reply-To: <v5q3an$4rvs$1@dont-email.me> Content-Language: en-US X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Bytes: 8190 Lines: 168 On 6/29/24 6:54 PM, olcott wrote: > 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 !!! But the question to Professor Sipser was, as you quoted: <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> Which said NOTHING about the x86 language, So, who is the liar now? > > _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. > Which wasn't what we were talking about with Professor Sipser, who never saw any of that. I guess you just have a major brain malfunction and can't keep your lies straight. This just proves your unreliability when it comes to statements