Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.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: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as
 non-halting.
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2024 08:20:53 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 74
Message-ID: <v6rajl$30qtt$7@dont-email.me>
References: <v6m7si$1uq86$2@dont-email.me> <v6mhc7$20hbo$2@dont-email.me>
 <v6mhr3$20kkr$2@dont-email.me> <v6nts5$2be3m$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6op4h$2fuva$4@dont-email.me> <v6qo1d$2ugov$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 15:20:54 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a53340e46817c86b736359d5ee28d54a";
	logging-data="3173309"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/yRcATbEubEr8fEPOyaOb1"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:kGzKpAIANsdElS5QkqbUkTEMofo=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v6qo1d$2ugov$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3550

On 7/12/2024 3:03 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-07-11 14:10:24 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 7/11/2024 1:25 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-07-10 17:53:38 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 7/10/2024 12:45 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>> Op 10.jul.2024 om 17:03 schreef olcott:
>>>>>> typedef void (*ptr)();
>>>>>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>> {
>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>> {
>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> Unneeded complexity. It is equivalent to:
>>>>>
>>>>>        int main()
>>>>>        {
>>>>>          return HHH(main);
>>>>>        }
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> However, each of those instances has the same sequence of instructions
>>> that the x86 language specifies the same operational meaning.
>>>
>>
>> *That is counter-factual*
>> When DDD is correctly emulated by HHH according to the
>> semantics of the x86 programming language HHH must abort
>> its emulation of DDD or both HHH and DDD never halt.
> 
> There is not "must" anywhere in the semantics of the programming language.
> 

The semantics of the language specifies the behavior of
the machine code thus deriving the must.

>> When DDD is correctly emulated by HHH1 according to the
>> semantics of the x86 programming language HHH1 need not
>> abort its emulation of DDD because HHH has already done this.
> 
> However, the program DDD is the same in both cases and therefore the
> its behavioral meaning per x86 semantics is also the same.
> 

HHH1(DDD) only halts because HHH(DDD) aborts its emulation
thus proving the the behaviors are different.

>> The behavior of DDD emulated by HHH1 is identical to the
>> behavior of the directly executed DDD().
> 
> Which is the behaviour of DDD accordint to the semantics of x86 language.
> 

If you stupidly ignore that DDD does call HHH in recursive
emulation it might superfically seem that way.

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