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
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2024 18:18:55 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 173
Message-ID: <v5sp4v$nnko$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$7@i2pn2.org>
 <v5smuk$n7a2$1@dont-email.me> <v5sorr$1kfbr$10@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 01:18:55 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f83257e6e5a87f489aa8241c55498376";
	logging-data="777880"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/k3BDmZ8mF60i5bfr4RdeE"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:pBwLegHCOkwups0YXpkAa+Rhu3s=
In-Reply-To: <v5sorr$1kfbr$10@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 8239

On 6/30/2024 6:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/30/24 6:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> 
> The problem is that the N steps emulated by HHH are not, and CAN NOT be 
> the "behavior of the input", 
They need not be the FULL behavior of the input.

     H correctly simulates its input D until
     H correctly simulates its input D until
     H correctly simulates its input D until
     H correctly simulates its input D until
     H correctly simulates its input D until
     H correctly simulates its input D until
     H correctly simulates its input D until
     H correctly simulates its input D until
     H correctly simulates its input D until
     H correctly simulates its input D until
     H correctly simulates its input D until
     H correctly simulates its input D until
     H correctly simulates its input D until
     H correctly simulates its input D until
     H correctly simulates its input D until
     H correctly simulates its input D until
     H correctly simulates its input D until
     H correctly simulates its input D until
     H correctly simulates its input D until
     H correctly simulates its input D until
     H correctly simulates its input D until
     H correctly simulates its input D until
     H correctly simulates its input D until
     H correctly simulates its input D until
     H correctly simulates its input D until
     H correctly simulates its input D until
     H correctly simulates its input D until

     H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
     stop running unless aborted




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