| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v5roq5$hnqf$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic,comp.ai.philosophy Subject: Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2024 09:07:01 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 254 Message-ID: <v5roq5$hnqf$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$2@i2pn2.org> <v5qgu4$aulp$1@dont-email.me> <v5rjcm$1jcrr$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 16:07:02 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6b752116cbce9cc9180c7aac2a5283cd"; logging-data="581455"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18aR4S2YWMfQA+vfqs04NrZ" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:et3mkGTSax57w7bU76kVBO8cQfQ= In-Reply-To: <v5rjcm$1jcrr$1@i2pn2.org> Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 12591 On 6/30/2024 7:34 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > 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 ==========