Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.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: DDD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly halt
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2024 10:43:53 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 80
Message-ID: <v6qmrp$2ua8s$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v6ki9s$1iun6$1@dont-email.me> <v6lbme$1qdil$1@dont-email.me> <v6m253$1tj30$4@dont-email.me> <v6nuti$2bj54$1@dont-email.me> <v6on9i$2fuva$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2024 09:43:54 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7bf503ee25881056f435303bb3b850af";
	logging-data="3090716"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+SxBarTStQ0/S7wyTwtIY2"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Ac9FuZfgTG8AXruavqO0uq4jAOk=
Bytes: 4264

On 2024-07-11 13:38:56 +0000, olcott said:

> On 7/11/2024 1:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-07-10 13:25:54 +0000, olcott said:
>> 
>>> On 7/10/2024 2:02 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-07-09 23:49:16 +0000, olcott said:
>>>> 
>>>>> _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)
>>>>> 
>>>>> DDD correctly emulated by any pure function HHH that
>>>>> correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD can't make it
>>>>> past the above line of code no matter what.
>>>>> 
>>>>> [00002170] 83c404     add esp,+04
>>>>> [00002173] 5d         pop ebp
>>>>> [00002174] c3         ret
>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002174]
>>>> 
>>>> The subject line is misleading. There is only one DDD so "DDD correctly
>>>> emulated by HHH" should simply mean DDD and nothing else.
>>> 
>>> *I added this to my latest paper*
>> 
>> That doesn't fix the subject line.
>> 
> 
> Then I don't understand what you are saying.

Perhaps you should ask someone who konws English better that you or I.

> "DDD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly halt"
> When halt means reaching its own final state and terminating normally.
> 
>>> Every time any HHH correctly emulates DDD it calls the
>>> x86utm operating system to create a separate process
>>> context with its own memory virtual registers and stack,
>>> thus each recursively emulated DDD is a different instance.
>> 
>> There should be a comma after the word "memory".
>> 
> Yes.
> 
>>> Simulating Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D
>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Simulating_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D 
>>> 
>> 
>> There is another error on the first page. The first sentence says: "The
>> notion of a simulating termination analyzer is examined at the concrete
>> level of pairs of C functions". That is contracited in the fourth paragraph:
>> "To understand this analysis requires a sufficient knowledge of the C
>> programming language and what an x86 emulator does". The analysis is not at
>> the level of C functions if any knowledge about an x86 emulator is needed.
> 
> That is a good idea. The less prerequisite knowledge my target
> audience needs the more people will be able understand what I am
> saying. I am trying to make my first page as simple as possible.
> 
> To understand this analysis requires a sufficient knowledge
> of the C programming language. An x86 emulator works just
> like a C language interpreter except that it uses the compiled
> machine language of a function instead of its source-code.

Perhapos you should say that an x86 emulator executes the compiled program
just like an x86 processor would but can in addition produce a trace of
the execution.

> That HHH is built from an x86 emulator allows it to simulate
> other C functions as if it was a C language interpreter.

> The second page will have the more difficult prerequisites.


-- 
Mikko