Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<v6sdlu$382g0$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!2.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,sci.logic,comp.ai.philosophy Subject: Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2024 18:19:26 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 92 Message-ID: <v6sdlu$382g0$1@dont-email.me> References: <v6rg65$32o1o$3@dont-email.me> <97e0632d0d889d141bdc6005ce6e513c53867798@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2024 01:19:26 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="52398669a80ff5113c36343403a598c9"; logging-data="3410432"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18KVcNmMc+aUVJYpcodPe6S" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:+LGr1ALXPDcQCXJgBipiY9ExRIg= In-Reply-To: <97e0632d0d889d141bdc6005ce6e513c53867798@i2pn2.org> Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 5094 On 7/12/2024 5:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 7/12/24 10:56 AM, olcott wrote: >> We stipulate that the only measure of a correct emulation is the >> semantics of the x86 programming language. > > Which means the only "correct emulation" that tells the behavior of the > program at the input is a non-aborted one. > >> >> _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] >> >> When N steps of DDD are emulated by HHH according to the >> semantics of the x86 language then N steps are emulated correctly. > > And thus HHH that do that know only the first N steps of the behavior of > DDD, which continues per the definition of the x86 instruction set until > the COMPLETE emulation (or direct execution) reaches a terminal > instruction. > >> >> When we examine the infinite set of every HHH/DDD pair such that: >> HHH₁ one step of DDD is correctly emulated by HHH. >> HHH₂ two steps of DDD are correctly emulated by HHH. >> HHH₃ three steps of DDD are correctly emulated by HHH. >> ... >> HHH∞ The emulation of DDD by HHH never stops running. > > And thus, the subset that only did a finite number of steps and aborted > its emulation on a non-terminal instrucition only have partial knowledge > of the behavior of their DDD, and by returning to their caller, they > establish that behavior for ALL copies of that HHH, even the one that > DDD calls, which shows that DDD will be halting, even though HHH stopped > its observation of the input before it gets to that point. > >> >> The above specifies the infinite set of every HHH/DDD pair >> where 1 to infinity steps of DDD are correctly emulated by HHH. >> >> No DDD instance of each HHH/DDD pair ever reaches past its >> own machine address of 0000216b and halts. > > Wrong. EVERY DDD of an HHH that simulated its input for only a finite > number of steps WILL halt becuase it will reach its final return. > > The HHH that simulated it for only a finite number of steps, only > learned that finite number of steps of the behaivor, and in EVERY case, > when we look at the behavior past that point, which DOES occur per the > definition of the x86 instruction set, as we have not reached a > "termial" instruction that stops behavior, will see the HHH(DDD) that > DDD called continuing to simulate its input to the point that this one > was defined to stop, and then returns 0 to DDDD and then DDD returning > and ending the behavior. > > You continue to stupidly confuse the PARTIAL observation that HHH does > of the behavior of DDD by its PARTIAL emulation with the ACTUAL FULL > behavior of DDD as defined by the full definition of the x86 insttuction > set. > > >> >> Thus each HHH element of the above infinite set of HHH/DDD >> pairs is necessarily correct to reject its DDD as non-halting. >> > > Nope. > > NONE Of them CORRECTLY rejected itS DDD as non-halting and you are shown > to be ignorant of what you are talking about. > > The HHH that did a partial emulation got the wrong answer, because THEIR > DDD will halt. and the HHH that doen't abort never get around to > rejecting its DDD as non-halting. *Here is the gist of my proof it is irrefutable* When no DDD of every HHH/DDD that can possibly exist halts then each HHH that rejects its DDD as non-halting is necessarily correct. *No double-talk and weasel words can overcome that* -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer