Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.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
Subject: Re: Liar detector: Fred, Richard, Joes and Alan --- Ben's agreement
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2024 06:57:59 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 126
Message-ID: <v6tq47$3imib$4@dont-email.me>
References: <v644pn$29t4h$3@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>
 <v6r9rg$30qtt$6@dont-email.me> <v6tbdc$3ge2u$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2024 13:57:59 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="52398669a80ff5113c36343403a598c9";
	logging-data="3758667"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18r3zoGg8xLBV9ZliBP7nhO"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:S9WF7Zpr9xbgyEb0gIS80H0ATxc=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v6tbdc$3ge2u$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 6234

On 7/13/2024 2:46 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-07-12 13:07:59 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Where has Intel promised so?
> 

Backward compatibility requires it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86_assembly_language#:~:text=x86%20assembly%20language%20is%20the,was%20launched%20in%20April%201972.

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