| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v5sbpp$1kfbr$1@i2pn2.org> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!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: Sun, 30 Jun 2024 15:31:05 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <v5sbpp$1kfbr$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> <v5rjcm$1jcrr$1@i2pn2.org> <v5roq5$hnqf$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2024 19:31:05 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="1719675"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 In-Reply-To: <v5roq5$hnqf$1@dont-email.me> Bytes: 13407 Lines: 268 On 6/30/24 10:07 AM, olcott wrote: > 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 ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========