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: Liar detector: Fred, Richard, Joes and Alan --- Ben's agreement
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2024 10:49:40 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 100
Message-ID: <v6qn6k$2ubkt$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v644pn$29t4h$3@dont-email.me> <v68ocd$39dkv$5@dont-email.me> <v68pfo$2n56v$7@dont-email.me> <v68rnv$39tml$2@dont-email.me> <v68tvd$3ac9t$1@dont-email.me> <v68uj0$3ahel$1@dont-email.me> <v694k4$3bevk$1@dont-email.me> <v69502$3bh3f$1@dont-email.me> <v6b1k4$3odj5$1@dont-email.me> <v6bf7r$3qiio$2@dont-email.me> <v6bm5v$3rj8n$1@dont-email.me> <v6bmoe$3ri0l$2@dont-email.me> <v6bnt2$3rj8n$3@dont-email.me> <v6brfj$3skuk$2@dont-email.me> <v6c3vh$3ttem$1@dont-email.me> <v6c539$3u2mj$1@dont-email.me> <v6dda0$7s8u$1@dont-email.me> <v6e67v$bbcb$4@dont-email.me> <v6gss2$t87a$1@dont-email.me> <v6gv65$to0m$1@dont-email.me> <v6h2li$ud7p$1@dont-email.me> <v6h2rm$ue7s$1@dont-email.me> <v6h3cu$ud7p$2@dont-email.me> <v6h83q$vag9$1@dont-email.me> <v6ikgb$19f5g$1@dont-email.me> <v6jgjo$1ctoi$4@dont-email.me> <v6lckp$1qi9e$1@dont-email.me> <v6m2qq$1tj30$6@dont-email.me> <60a1c2490e9bd9a5478fd173a20ed64d5eb158f9@i2pn2.org> <v6nvn8$2bn6q$1@dont-email.me> <v6oqti$2fuva$7@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 09:49:40 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="807c282dc99f45cb4bf1613b1d698492";
	logging-data="3092125"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/1zvBlAxo6z+ePTYLJS6yT"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:H++8fbAcnkjdiMTYU9kuYR2xVpg=
Bytes: 5248

On 2024-07-11 14:40:50 +0000, olcott said:

> On 7/11/2024 1:56 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-07-10 18:27:27 +0000, joes said:
>> 
>>> Am Wed, 10 Jul 2024 08:37:30 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>> On 7/10/2024 2:18 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-07-09 14:14:16 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>> On 7/9/2024 1:14 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-07-08 17:36:58 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>> On 7/8/2024 11:16 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Op 08.jul.2024 om 18:07 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Try to show how infinity is one cycle too soon.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> You believe that two equals infinity.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> void Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>    HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>> void Infinite_Recursion()
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>    Infinite_Recursion();
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>> Two cycles is enough to correctly determine that none of the above
>>>>>>>> functions correctly emulated by HHH can possibly halt.
>>>>>>>> That you don't see this is ignorance or deception.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> There is an important detail that determines whether an infinite
>>>>>>> execution can be inferred. That is best illustrated by the following
>>>>>>> examples:
>>>>>>> void Finite_Loop()
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>   int x = 10000;
>>>>>>> HERE:
>>>>>>>   if (x > 0) {
>>>>>>>     x--;
>>>>>>>     goto HERE;
>>>>>>>   }
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>> void Finite_Recursion(int n)
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>   if (n > 0) {
>>>>>>>     Finite_Recursion(n + 1);
>>>>>>>   }
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>   HHH(DDD); // HHH detects recursive simulation and then simulates
>>>>>>>   no more }
>>>>>>> The important difference is that in my examples there is a
>>>>>>> conditional instruction that can (and does) prevent infinite
>>>>>>> exectuion.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> When we ask:
>>>>>> Does the call from DDD emulated by HHH to HHH(DDD) return?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Why would anyone ask that? A question should make clear its topic.
>>>>> Instead one could ask whether HHH can fully emulate DDD if that is what
>>>>> one wants to know. Or one may think that HHH and DDD are so
>>>>> unimteresting that there is no point to ask anyting about them.
>>>>> 
>>>> A correct emulator can correctly any correct x86 instructions.
>>>> When it emulates non-halting code then itself does not halt.
>> 
>>> Oh? Maybe you should give your simulator and decider different names
>>> so they don't get confused.
>> 
>> A charlatan doesn't want clarity but confusion. A good charlatan just
>> dont what them so much that they would be noticed for that might expose
>> the charlatan.
>> 
> 
> It is a hierarchy of prerequisites of knowledge.
> Before anyone can understand a simulating termination
> analyzer based on an x86 emulator they must understand
> (1) x86 emulation
> (2) Termination Analysis.

The order should be:
(1) termination analysis and termination analyzer,
(2) simulating termination analyzer,
(3) x86,
(4) x86 emulation,
(5) simulating termination analyzer based on an x86 emulator.

> So far no-one besides Ben Bacarisse has sufficiently
> understood (1) "x86 emulation" well enough so that we can
> move on to the

That concept is so simple there is really not much to understand.

-- 
Mikko