Path: ...!npeer.as286.net!npeer-ng0.as286.net!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.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
Subject: Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the
 semantics of the x86 language
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2024 17:41:24 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 131
Message-ID: <v5smuk$n7a2$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$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v5sjsa$msl0$1@dont-email.me> <v5skc9$1kfbr$7@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 00:41:25 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f83257e6e5a87f489aa8241c55498376";
	logging-data="761154"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19zJlXUI/ygd/tgO0L+UIV6"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:hMRfbDuJ/YT5vWGhhlb5LmxNSJQ=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v5skc9$1kfbr$7@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 6296

On 6/30/2024 4:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> 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.
> 

You already know that you are the liar here and are
lying about not knowing this.

_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 at machine address 0000217a cannot possibly return.

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer