Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<v5qgu4$aulp$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic,comp.ai.philosophy Subject: Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2024 21:46:27 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 192 Message-ID: <v5qgu4$aulp$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> <v5q3an$4rvs$1@dont-email.me> <v5q6c2$1hdtc$2@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 04:46:29 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6b752116cbce9cc9180c7aac2a5283cd"; logging-data="359097"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18OO+hi2+34SjPJE4rtWgvE" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:C1XOxXMlv17Tia8WXM9FkN0nnpE= In-Reply-To: <v5q6c2$1hdtc$2@i2pn2.org> Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 9402 On 6/29/2024 6:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > 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 ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========