Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the
 semantics of the x86 language
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2024 10:46:53 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 89
Message-ID: <v5tqdt$vsqq$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v5pbjf$55h$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 10:46:53 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1534dac1c532bab719c9b21f66b1f90c";
	logging-data="1045338"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+VzF2//kcrijlouCbto5YI"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:n+Ojh9Lkze72Dtsm+y3xYTyspxw=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <v5pbjf$55h$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4302

Op 29.jun.2024 om 18:09 schreef olcott:
> 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
> 

Apparently the x86 language and simulation are to complex for you. Make 
it simple. What about the following halt decider:

   int Halt (ptr p) {
     return 1;
   }

It is clear that the question "Will de program described in the input 
halt" is incorrect, because Halt is unable to process that question, so 
we cannot ask that question. Therefore, we need to redefine the question 
to "Does the program described in the input halt or not?".
And since the expression (X || !X) always result in true for any value 
of X, the Halt function is always correct and we have solved the halting 
problem.