Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2024 09:05:39 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 117
Message-ID: <v5tgvj$utcb$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v5pbjf$55h$1@dont-email.me> <v5r5q9$ekvf$1@dont-email.me> <v5s40h$jvgt$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2024 08:05:40 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b35b20d0180abe92a52468bd7e21bee0";
	logging-data="1013131"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/QjnGl8BZd8j/BlvxuXqrU"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Kgua76yTvUMV9o4VDedgFQRUrnM=
Bytes: 5223

On 2024-06-30 17:18:09 +0000, olcott said:

> 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.
> 
> On 6/30/2024 7:34 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>  > It is still true that the xemantics of the x86
>  > language define the behavior of a set of bytes,
>  > as the behavior when you ACTUALLY RUN THEM,
>  > and nothing else.
> 
> _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]
> 
> Richard thinks that he can get away with disagreeing with this
> verified fact:
> 
> 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.

It is your HHH so you should know whether it returns. Others may
have wrong impression about it if they have trusted your lies.

-- 
Mikko