| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v5sk80$1kfbr$6@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 17:55:12 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <v5sk80$1kfbr$6@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> <v5sbpp$1kfbr$1@i2pn2.org> <v5sj6q$mpem$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2024 21:55:12 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="1719675"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird In-Reply-To: <v5sj6q$mpem$1@dont-email.me> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 15101 Lines: 300 On 6/30/24 5:37 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/30/2024 2:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> 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 ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========