Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<v5skiq$mvou$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic Subject: Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language --- repeat until acknowledged Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2024 17:00:57 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 101 Message-ID: <v5skiq$mvou$1@dont-email.me> References: <v5pbjf$55h$1@dont-email.me> <v5r5q9$ekvf$1@dont-email.me> <v5s40h$jvgt$1@dont-email.me> <v5sbpt$1kfbr$2@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2024 00:00:58 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f83257e6e5a87f489aa8241c55498376"; logging-data="753438"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18kWBSJDYU3htxtNWhyuv41" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:r46a2VQNu5I6JrGa+ehw3XYsMf0= In-Reply-To: <v5sbpt$1kfbr$2@i2pn2.org> Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 4869 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. > Therefore DDD correctly simulated by HHH DOES NOT HALT. Thus HHH correctly reports that DDD DOES NOT HALT. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer