Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.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
Subject: Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as
 non-halting.
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2024 09:43:48 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 66
Message-ID: <v6o2fj$2bop1$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v6m7si$1uq86$2@dont-email.me> <v6mhc7$20hbo$2@dont-email.me>
 <v6mito$bbr$1@news.muc.de> <v6mlce$21avi$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2024 09:43:48 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c82f3a237c14c153e0143a8857a876d1";
	logging-data="2482977"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18CUWJoL9wZ5uyPv3bf3oJJ"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:jSlEP99lsMjy4OV3x54vkoszjcU=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <v6mlce$21avi$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3600

Op 10.jul.2024 om 20:54 schreef olcott:
> On 7/10/2024 1:12 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> [ Followup-To: set ]
>>
>> In comp.theory Fred. Zwarts <F.Zwarts@hetnet.nl> wrote:
>>
>> [ .... ]
>>
>>> Proving that the simulation is incorrect. Because a correct simulation
>>> would not abort a halting program halfway its simulation.
>>
>> Just for clarity, a correct simulation wouldn't abort a non-halting
>> program either, would it?  Or have I misunderstood this correctness?
>>
>> [ .... ]
>>
> 
>  >
> 
> Welcome back.
> I stipulate that I am referring to 1 to ∞ steps of correct
> emulation according to the semantics of the x86 language.
> 
> This means that when HHH does correctly emulate 1 step
> that *it is a correct emulation* of this 1 step, 

But not a correct simulation of a program. The x86 language specifies 
that it is insufficient to interpret only one instruction of a program. 
For a correct simulation of a halting program, all instructions must be 
simulated.
Maybe you don't know the x86 language well enough to understand that the 
behaviour of a program is not defined by the first few instructions.

> thus
> making everyone that disagrees disagree with a tautology
> making them look foolish.



> 
> We stipulate that the only measure of a correct emulation
> is the semantics of the x86 programming language. By this
> measure when 1 to ∞ steps of DDD are correctly emulated
> by each pure function x86 emulator HHH (of the infinite
> set of every HHH that can possibly exist) then DDD cannot
> possibly reach past its own machine address of 0000216b
> and halt.

Which proves that the simulation is incomplete and, therefore, incorrect.
You proved again that HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly.
Even when you wish it very very much that it is correct and even if you 
repeat it a thousand times more, that will not make it correct.
A correct simulation by another simulator shows that the correct 
simulation is possible, but not by HHH itself.

> 
> _DDD()
> [00002163] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
> [00002164] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
> [00002166] 6863210000 push 00002163 ; push DDD
> [0000216b] e853f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DDD)
> [00002170] 83c404     add esp,+04
> [00002173] 5d         pop ebp
> [00002174] c3         ret
> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002174]
>