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 ==========