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
Subject: Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the
 semantics of the x86 language
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2024 17:57:29 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v5skc9$1kfbr$7@i2pn2.org>
References: <v5pbjf$55h$1@dont-email.me> <v5r5q9$ekvf$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5s40h$jvgt$1@dont-email.me> <v5sbpt$1kfbr$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v5sjsa$msl0$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2024 21:57:29 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1719675"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v5sjsa$msl0$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5295
Lines: 108

On 6/30/24 5:48 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/30/2024 2:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/30/24 1:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/30/2024 3:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-06-29 16:09:19 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with
>>>>> the semantics of the x86 language. That is isomorphic to
>>>>> trying to get away with disagreeing with arithmetic.
>>>>>
>>>>> typedef void (*ptr)();
>>>>> int H0(ptr P);
>>>>>
>>>>> void Infinite_Loop()
>>>>> {
>>>>>    HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> void Infinite_Recursion()
>>>>> {
>>>>>    Infinite_Recursion();
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>> {
>>>>>    H0(DDD);
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> int main()
>>>>> {
>>>>>    H0(Infinite_Loop);
>>>>>    H0(Infinite_Recursion);
>>>>>    H0(DDD);
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> Every C programmer that knows what an x86 emulator is knows
>>>>> that when H0 emulates the machine language of Infinite_Loop,
>>>>> Infinite_Recursion, and DDD that it must abort these emulations
>>>>> so that itself can terminate normally.
>>>>>
>>>>> When this is construed as non-halting criteria then simulating
>>>>> termination analyzer H0 is correct to reject these inputs as
>>>>> non-halting by returning 0 to its caller.
>>>>>
>>>>> Simulating termination analyzers must report on the behavior
>>>>> that their finite string input specifies thus H0 must report
>>>>> that DDD correctly emulated by H0 remains stuck in recursive
>>>>> simulation.
>>>>>
>>>>> <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>
>>>>>
>>>>> People are trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics
>>>>> of the x86 language by disagreeing that
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> _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]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *A 100% complete and total rewrite of the prior paper*
>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381636432_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_P
>>>>
>>>> Nothing above is or points to any evdence about the alleged 
>>>> disagreement.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Of course not. I only said the actual truth.
>>>
>>> Richard just said that he affirms that when DDD correctly
>>> simulated by HHH calls HHH(DDD) that this call returns even
>>> though the semantics of the x86 language disagrees.
>>
>> What in the sematics of the x86 language, which INCLUDES that ever 
>> instruction WILL be followed by the next instruction, says that the 
>> HHH that is calld by DDD won't eventually return.
>>
>> Since you assert that HHH(DDD) called by main returns, then by your 
>> requreement that HHH be a "pure function" ALL copies of it will do the 
>> same thing.
>>
>> Yes, the EMULATION of HHH by HHH, but that can not be the "behavior of 
>> the input" as that "behavior" depends on more than just the input.
>>
> 
> Therefore DDD correctly simulated by HHH DOES NOT HALT.
> Thus HHH correctly reports that DDD DOES NOT HALT.
> 

And then it doesn't correct emulate the input, and thus is a LIAR.

if HHH does abort and return, then DDD, and the HHH that it calls, also 
returns but AFTER HHH aborts its emulation of it.