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: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2024 10:50:35 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 128
Message-ID: <v7ahgb$2aq0c$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v6m7si$1uq86$2@dont-email.me> <v6ntmh$2bd9a$1@dont-email.me> <v6oomc$2fuva$3@dont-email.me> <v6qpcu$2uo3m$1@dont-email.me> <v6rb1f$30qtt$9@dont-email.me> <v6tbss$3ggjj$1@dont-email.me> <v6trco$3imib$8@dont-email.me> <v703ca$2ooi$1@dont-email.me> <v70o8b$61d8$7@dont-email.me> <v72kgg$k2bp$1@dont-email.me> <v737ov$mjis$12@dont-email.me> <v756d3$15ond$1@dont-email.me> <v760db$19j7l$10@dont-email.me> <v77tsg$1oeb3$1@dont-email.me> <v78hdd$1rc43$9@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2024 09:50:36 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b29b95fd0dce29f201fee23891e90c40";
	logging-data="2451468"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18EBtMjAOvI6cqsNe3dFgoQ"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:s16ddP0nm4CQl3Ak/Ip9h9Ry55I=
Bytes: 6594

On 2024-07-17 13:36:45 +0000, olcott said:

> On 7/17/2024 3:03 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-07-16 14:34:19 +0000, olcott said:
>> 
>>> On 7/16/2024 2:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-07-15 13:21:35 +0000, olcott said:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 7/15/2024 2:52 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-07-14 14:44:27 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 7/14/2024 3:48 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-07-13 12:19:36 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On 7/13/2024 2:55 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-07-12 13:28:15 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2024 3:27 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-07-11 14:02:52 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/11/2024 1:22 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-07-10 15:03:46 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> typedef void (*ptr)();
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We stipulate that the only measure of a correct emulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the semantics of the x86 programming language. By this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> measure when 1 to ∞ steps of DDD are correctly emulated by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> each pure function x86 emulator HHH (of the infinite set
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of every HHH that can possibly exist) then DDD cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly reach past its own machine address of 0000216b
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and halt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For every instruction that the C compiler generates the x86 language
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifies an unambiguous meaning, leaving no room for "can".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> then DDD cannot possibly reach past its own machine
>>>>>>>>>>>>> address of 0000216b and halt.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> As I already said, there is not room for "can". That means there is
>>>>>>>>>>>> no room for "cannot", either. The x86 semantics of the unshown code
>>>>>>>>>>>> determines unambigously what happens.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Of an infinite set behavior X exists for at least one element
>>>>>>>>>>> or behavior X does not exist for at least one element.
>>>>>>>>>>> Of the infinite set of HHH/DDD pairs zero DDD elements halt.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> That is so far from the Common Language that I can't parse.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> *This proves that every rebuttal is wrong somewhere*
>>>>>>>>> No DDD instance of each HHH/DDD pair of the infinite set of
>>>>>>>>> every HHH/DDD pair ever reaches past its own machine address of
>>>>>>>>> 0000216b and halts thus proving that every HHH is correct to
>>>>>>>>> reject its input DDD as non-halting.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Here you attempt to use the same name for a constant programs and univesally
>>>>>>>> quantifed variable with a poorly specified range. That is a form of a well
>>>>>>>> known mistake called the "fallacy of equivocation".
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I incorporated your suggestion in my paper.
>>>>>>> DDD is a fixed constant finite string that calls its
>>>>>>> HHH at the same fixed constant machine address.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> That does not make sense. Which HHH does that DDD call? Which HHH
>>>>>> is at that fixed machine address?
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> HHH₁ to HHH∞ forming an infinite set of HHH/DDD pairs
>>>>> 
>>>>> HHH₁/DDD₁ to HHH∞/DDD∞ is another way to specify this
>>>>> infinite set of HHH/DDD pairs.
>>>> 
>>>> You should not say "another way" before you have one way. What you
>>>> presented earlier is not a way as it did not make sense.
>>> 
>>> DDD itself is a single immutable finite string have the exactly
>>> same instructions at the exact same machine addresses.
>> 
>> That string does not specify what the call to an address outside of the
>> string does and whether it returns.
> 
> It need not do that. It specifies the address of HHH and the empirical
> behavior of DDD correctly emulated by HHH shows this behavior.
> 
> Also it is stipulated that HHH is an infinite set of x86 emulators
> that correctly emulate 1,2,3...∞ instructions of DDD.

That stipulation contradicts the semantics of x86 and C languages which
require that all data is finite.

If HHH is an infinite set then so is the behaviour of DDD. Consequently,
the question of whether DDD halts is ill-posed and instead one must ask
what subset of DDD is the subset of DDD's that halt.

> _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]
> 
> *THIS IS SELF EVIDENT THUS DISAGREEMENT IS INCORRECT*
> DDD emulated by any pure function HHH according to the
> semantic meaning of its x86 instructions never stops
> running unless aborted.

That is ambigouls so agreement is incorrect.

-- 
Mikko