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: Everyone here seems to consistently lie about this
Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2024 10:01:17 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 69
Message-ID: <v8lgnt$3ge64$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v8hf52$2jl7d$1@dont-email.me> <v8kodp$3bu46$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8lces$3f6vr$3@dont-email.me> <v8ld7u$3fcgg$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8lebl$3ftpo$1@dont-email.me> <v8lgb8$3gadt$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 17:01:18 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6697133516c971b81fd53169bb6a94ea";
	logging-data="3684548"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18Etz+hlwx/genBfGhCWa2L"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Xs2aAhUw22rG8inyGkcWyeJ1WyA=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v8lgb8$3gadt$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3895

On 8/3/2024 9:54 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 03.aug.2024 om 16:20 schreef olcott:
>> On 8/3/2024 9:01 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 03.aug.2024 om 15:48 schreef olcott:
>>>> On 8/3/2024 3:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-08-02 02:09:38 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> *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>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> DDD is correctly emulated by HHH according to the x86
>>>>>> language semantics of DDD and HHH including when DDD
>>>>>> emulates itself emulating DDD
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *UNTIL*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> HHH correctly determines that never aborting this
>>>>>> emulation would cause DDD and HHH to endlessly repeat.
>>>>>
>>>>> The determination is not correct. DDD is a halting computation, as
>>>>> correctely determined by HHH1 or simly calling it from main. It is
>>>>> not possible to correctly determine that ha haling computation is
>>>>> non-halting, as is self-evdent from the meaning of the words.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated
>>>>   by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?]
>>>>
>>>> void DDD()
>>>> {
>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>    return;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>
>>> When it cannot possibly reach its own return instruction, 
>>
>> You are not allowed to disagree with the semantics of C
>> or the semantics of the x86 language. As long as the
>> execution trace is consistent with these then it is defined
>> to be correct.
>>
> 
> Talking nonsense does not hide you problem. I don't disagree with that 
> semantics.
> It is HHH that deviates from the semantics of the x86 language by 
> skipping the last few instructions of a halting program, changing its 
> behaviour in this way.

There are no last few instructions of any halting program
that DDD correctly emulated by HHH skips.

Within the semantics of C and the semantics of the x86
language (thus specifying a correct simulation) the call
to HHH(DDD) from the simulated DDD cannot possibly return.



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