| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v5rjcm$1jcrr$1@i2pn2.org> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!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: Sun, 30 Jun 2024 08:34:30 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <v5rjcm$1jcrr$1@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> <v5q6c2$1hdtc$2@i2pn2.org> <v5qgu4$aulp$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2024 12:34:30 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="1684347"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <v5qgu4$aulp$1@dont-email.me> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Bytes: 11449 Lines: 232 On 6/29/24 10:46 PM, olcott wrote: > 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 ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========