Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.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: Any honest person that knows the x86 language can see...
Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2024 11:17:16 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 87
Message-ID: <v8kp2c$3c5h2$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v887np$gl15$1@dont-email.me> <v8a2j5$u4t6$1@dont-email.me> <v8asse$12hr3$2@dont-email.me> <v8cpti$1gav5$1@dont-email.me> <v8dng8$1lmkb$1@dont-email.me> <v8iadk$2p1af$1@dont-email.me> <v8j5qn$2ucuj$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2024 10:17:17 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b1a0dbf49226a9afe8ac0f2cff9b34f2";
	logging-data="3544610"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/NZ1SVCcYOV8O8thEWPKJi"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:xe84alPhxGL4Ur93pllhV2juP7o=
Bytes: 4998

On 2024-08-02 17:42:47 +0000, olcott said:

> On 8/2/2024 4:55 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-07-31 16:07:34 +0000, olcott said:
>> 
>>> On 7/31/2024 2:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-07-30 14:21:02 +0000, olcott said:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 7/30/2024 1:52 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-07-29 14:07:53 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> HHH(Infinite_Recursion) and HHH(DDD) show the same non-halting
>>>>>>> behavior pattern in their derived execution traces of their
>>>>>>> inputs.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hard to believe as their behaviour is so different and you don't
>>>>>> say what pattern the see.
>>>>> 
>>>>> *Its all in the part that you erased*
>>>>> 
>>>>> *Infinite_Recursion correctly emulated by HHH*
>>>>> *THREE lines repeat with no conditional branch instructions*
>>>>> Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:113934
>>>>> [0000215a][00113924][00113928] 55         push ebp      ; 1st line
>>>>> [0000215b][00113924][00113928] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; 2nd line
>>>>> [0000215d][00113920][00002162] e8f8ffffff call 0000215a ; 3rd line
>>>>> [0000215a][0011391c][00113924] 55         push ebp      ; 1st line
>>>>> [0000215b][0011391c][00113924] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; 2nd line
>>>>> [0000215d][00113918][00002162] e8f8ffffff call 0000215a ; 3rd line
>>>>> Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
>>>>> 
>>>>> *DDD correctly emulated by HHH*
>>>>> *FOUR lines repeat with no conditional branch instructions*
>>>>> Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:113895
>>>>> [00002177][00113885][00113889] 55         push ebp      ; 1st line
>>>>> [00002178][00113885][00113889] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; 2nd line
>>>>> [0000217a][00113881][00002177] 6877210000 push 00002177 ; push DDD
>>>>> [0000217f][0011387d][00002184] e853f4ffff call 000015d7 ; call HHH
>>>>> [00002177][0015e2ad][0015e2b1] 55         push ebp      ; 1st line
>>>>> [00002178][0015e2ad][0015e2b1] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; 2nd line
>>>>> [0000217a][0015e2a9][00002177] 6877210000 push 00002177 ; push DDD
>>>>> [0000217f][0015e2a5][00002184] e853f4ffff call 000015d7 ; call HHH
>>>>> Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
>>>> 
>>>> As that part does not show the anwer it seems best to assume that they
>>>> do not see the same pattern or the pattern is not a real non-halting
>>>> behaviour pattern. Of course, if a proof is ever presented, we may need
>>>> to reconsider, but it is very unlikely that any such proof will ever
>>>> be presented.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> A proof is any sequence of steps such that the conclusion
>>> is a necessary consequence of its basis.
>>> 
>>> Proving that DDD correctly emulated by HHH matches the
>>> infinite recursion behavior pattern.
>>> (a) The semantics of the x86 language.
>>> (b) the design of HHH provided below.
>>> (c) The definition of infinite recursion provided below.
>>> 
>>> *Infinite recursion behavior pattern*
>>> An emulated sequence of instructions that has no conditional
>>> branch instructions in this sequence is exactly repeated when
>>> it calls the same function with the same parameters again.
>>> As long as the called function can be determined to never
>>> return this proves infinite recursion.
>> 
>> You have not proven that there is no conditional instructions
>> in the repeated cycle.
> 
> void DDD()
> {
>    HHH(DDD);
>    return;
> }
> 
> In other words you are too damn stupid to see that
> DDD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach
> its own return instruction?

I can see perfectly well that DDD cannot reach its return instruction
if HHH fails to return. Whether HHH fails to return is your problem,
not mine.

-- 
Mikko