Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<v8g4p5$26s53$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: This function proves that only the outermost HHH examines the execution trace Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2024 16:06:27 +0200 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 76 Message-ID: <v8g4p5$26s53$1@dont-email.me> References: <v80h07$2su8m$3@dont-email.me> <0amdndFJSZSzYD77nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@brightview.co.uk> <v8102f$2vo8u$1@dont-email.me> <v83fhe$3gihn$1@dont-email.me> <v83hmk$3gvj7$1@dont-email.me> <v83jc9$3gihm$1@dont-email.me> <v83juc$3ham9$1@dont-email.me> <v8519e$3s7bv$1@dont-email.me> <v88h9e$i7kl$7@dont-email.me> <v8a31r$u7n5$1@dont-email.me> <v8btl5$184u7$3@dont-email.me> <v8cval$1hf7s$1@dont-email.me> <v8dshi$1mg72$4@dont-email.me> <v8fes7$22of5$1@dont-email.me> <v8fti6$24rl1$8@dont-email.me> <v8g0el$24u77$1@dont-email.me> <v8g0lr$25l0a$8@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2024 16:06:29 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8c0ac17c3f9e00decd2248743b2f1a16"; logging-data="2322595"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+VfugFwxP7U/OTyhbp7QVp" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:vYmn1MNeGn845psBtlYSFQSZ9mg= In-Reply-To: <v8g0lr$25l0a$8@dont-email.me> Content-Language: en-GB Bytes: 4722 Op 01.aug.2024 om 14:56 schreef olcott: > On 8/1/2024 7:52 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >> Op 01.aug.2024 om 14:03 schreef olcott: >>> On 8/1/2024 2:52 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2024-07-31 17:33:38 +0000, olcott said: >>>> >>>>> On 7/31/2024 4:15 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 2024-07-30 23:40:21 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 7/30/2024 2:00 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2024-07-29 16:50:53 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 7/28/2024 3:59 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2024-07-27 20:05:31 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>> If you had sufficient understanding of the x86 language >>>>>>>>>>> you would know that DDD is correctly emulated by HHH. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If you had suffient understanding of x86 language and correctness >>>>>>>>>> you would know that DDD is incorrectly emnulated by HHH. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This is only seems that way because every reviewer makes sure >>>>>>>>> to ignore one aspect of the basis of another. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It is perfectly OK to ignore irrelevant details. A relevant detail >>>>>>>> is the meaning of the word "emulate" as that determines what is a >>>>>>>> correct emulation and what is not. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *It is not OK to ignore* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This algorithm is used by all the simulating termination analyzers: >>>>>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words >>>>>>> 10/13/2022> >>>>>>> If simulating halt decider *H correctly simulates its input D* >>>>>>> *until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never* >>>>>>> *stop running unless aborted* then >>>>>>> >>>>>>> H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D >>>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. >>>>>>> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words >>>>>>> 10/13/2022> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> for DDD correctly emulated by HHH until... >>>>>> >>>>>> It is as Sipser does not say whether DDD is correctly simulated by >>>>>> HHH >>>>>> or what would constitute a correct simulation. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This has already been fully established elsewhere. >>>> >>>> You have never shown any proof about either "correctly". >>>> >>> >>> When instructions are executed/emulated according to the >>> semantics of the x86 language then they are executed/emulated >>> correctly. >>> >> >> But only those instructions. A halting program is simulated correctly >> if no instructions are skipped. > > > Correctly and correctly and completely are not the > same damn thing you freaking moron. > Correctly includes completely for a halting program. If the last few instructions of halting program are skipped, important behaviour of the program is hidden. That you have no arguments, except ad hominem attacks, tells a lot. The simulation of HHH by itself is incomplete and, therefore, incorrect. Nobody will believe you when you say the the simulation of only the first few instructions of a halting program shows the behaviour of that program. But you are a slow learner. You will probably repeat the same errors another thousand times.