Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Liar detector: Fred, Richard, Joes and Alan --- Ben's agreement
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2024 08:07:59 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 115
Message-ID: <v6r9rg$30qtt$6@dont-email.me>
References: <v644pn$29t4h$3@dont-email.me> <v68b3f$2n56v$5@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> <v6nvc8$2blka$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6opg3$2fuva$6@dont-email.me> <v6qnif$2udsp$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 15:08:00 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a53340e46817c86b736359d5ee28d54a";
	logging-data="3173309"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18u+zZetsd74Aevv0u7gipG"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:cchwIjlRR7EBsbyp0WHVz74kq5c=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v6qnif$2udsp$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5697

On 7/12/2024 2:55 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-07-11 14:16:34 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 7/11/2024 1:50 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-07-10 13:37:30 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Not quite right but should be easy to fix. There should be a verb 
>>> before "any",
>>> for example "execute". Of course there still is a probelm with the 
>>> meaning
>>> "any correct x86 instructions". Intel may publish a new x86 processor 
>>> that has
>>> instructios that the emulator cannot know but are nevertheless 
>>> correct x86
>>> instructions because Intel says so. In the second sentence "it" 
>>> should be used
>>> istead of "itself".
>>>
>>
>> Intel has already done this and they call this x64.
>> A 1907 Model-T Ford cannot have upgrades and still
>> be a 1907 model-T Ford. Likewise for the x86 language.
> 
> A new version of a 1907 Model-T Ford is possible and can have the same name
> except that the "1907" must be replaced as it refers to the year. That the
> "Model-T" is also replaced is a free chioce of Ford.
> 
> Likewise Intel is free to call a new processor whatever they want to 
> call it.
> 

The x86 language is a fixed constant.


-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer