Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the
 semantics of the x86 language
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2024 22:00:31 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v5vmvv$1oana$3@i2pn2.org>
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$10@i2pn2.org>
 <v5sp4v$nnko$1@dont-email.me> <v5sr4t$1kfbq$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v5srjn$o1o0$1@dont-email.me> <v5ssaq$1kfbq$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v5st66$o7ss$1@dont-email.me> <v5su4q$1kfbr$11@i2pn2.org>
 <v5sv8o$ogo5$1@dont-email.me> <v5t0h8$1kfbr$12@i2pn2.org>
 <v5t1af$omq9$1@dont-email.me> <v5t3h4$1kfbr$13@i2pn2.org>
 <v5t470$t0hj$1@dont-email.me> <v5u2o5$1mj7k$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v5u8li$12udb$3@dont-email.me> <v5vi6t$1oanb$8@i2pn2.org>
 <v5vlv2$1b0k9$6@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2024 02:00:31 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1845994"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v5vlv2$1b0k9$6@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4558
Lines: 78

On 7/1/24 9:42 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/1/2024 7:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/1/24 8:49 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/1/2024 6:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/30/24 10:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/30/2024 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/30/24 9:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/30/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/30/24 9:03 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/30/2024 7:44 PM, 
>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I had to dumb this down because even the smartest
>>>>>>>>> people here were overwhelmed:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But that is NOT the "behavior of the input", and CAN NOT BE SO 
>>>>>>>> DEFINED.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't understand why you so stupidly lie about 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]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> DDD is correctly emulated by HHH which calls an
>>>>>>> emulated HHH(DDD) to repeat the process until aborted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And, since the HHH that DDD calls will abort is emulation, it WILL 
>>>>>> return to DDD and it will return also.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> How can stopping the emulation the first four
>>>>> instructions of DDD possibly do anything besides stop?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The emulation stops, and the emulating behavor of HHH stops, but not 
>>>> the behavior of the input.
>>>
>>> When DDD is no longer being emulated all of its behavior
>>> stops. DDD is the input.
>>>
>>
>> Nope. YOU don't understand the meaning of the terms, perhaps because 
>> you don't understand what REALITY is.
>>
>> The "Behavior of the Input" comes from the input alone, and doesn't 
>> depend on the emulator doing anything.
>>
> 
> Static strings do not become dynamic processes unless
> and until they are simulated.

And THAT behavior is of the simulator.

Static Strings for Behavior Questions need to represent something that 
HAS Behavior, which is a program, and the behavior in question will be 
when that program is run.

Your definition doesn't work, as the "Behavior of the Input" isn't a 
function of just the input, but also of the decider.

It is exactly like asking "What is the sum of two plus?"

> 
>> The emulation only REVEALS the behavior to the decider, not create it.
>>
>