Path: ...!news.nobody.at!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: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point
 --- in our head
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2024 22:13:23 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 143
Message-ID: <v9jroj$qio5$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v9gv4k$4sc4$1@dont-email.me>
 <561f876601b0329c0260bac26f8b6dfb6e28647f@i2pn2.org>
 <v9h5af$9jn6$1@dont-email.me>
 <aa4bc24ac5642087e81796fffc31e5022bd8823e@i2pn2.org>
 <v9h9ec$a0id$1@dont-email.me>
 <190847da05ab48555c036a799e768f555461eb43@i2pn2.org>
 <v9hbhm$abr9$1@dont-email.me>
 <28bda6bb7d9efdacadf3de76c85a4857d0f83cb3@i2pn2.org>
 <v9ibpq$f16v$4@dont-email.me>
 <be041261e6d47d07a3b29255dc408e6803d870ad@i2pn2.org>
 <v9jnm0$q0lv$1@dont-email.me>
 <54c2cf5516e1477512a9dc4df913c8747164c631@i2pn2.org>
 <v9jom1$q5o5$1@dont-email.me>
 <192e56d5bedc6f7e537857a2cf21af0d9a352edd@i2pn2.org>
 <v9jpms$qaaf$1@dont-email.me>
 <8f9bb44064cab68e97b57ace4988d14928448672@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2024 05:13:24 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b70e3e79cdddcca7f32bbdda15810b8e";
	logging-data="871173"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+fKrhRhDTX+cemJ+yef2yu"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:nw19hO3ZloourSgmtEOxQrPFLiA=
In-Reply-To: <8f9bb44064cab68e97b57ace4988d14928448672@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 7292

On 8/14/2024 10:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 8/14/24 10:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 8/14/2024 9:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 8/14/24 10:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 8/14/2024 9:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 8/14/24 10:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/14/2024 6:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/14/24 9:34 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2024 6:22 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/24 12:24 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/13/2024 11:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/13/24 11:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/13/2024 10:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/13/24 10:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/13/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/13/24 8:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _DDD()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002173] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000217f] 83c404     add esp,+04
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002182] 5d         pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002183] c3         ret
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH according to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the semantics of the x86 language is necessarily correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, it is just the correct PARTIAL emulation of the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first N instructions of DDD, and not of all of DDD, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is what I said dufuss.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. You didn't. I added clairifying words, pointing out 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> why you claim is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> For an emulation to be "correct" it must be complete, as 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> partial emulations are only partially correct, so without 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the partial modifier, they are not correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> A complete emulation of one instruction is
>>>>>>>>>>>> a complete emulation of one instruction
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A correct simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sufficient to correctly predict the behavior of an 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unlimited
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, if a HHH returns to its caller, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Try to show exactly how DDD emulated by HHH returns to 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its caller*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (the first one doesn't even have a caller)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Use the above machine language instructions to show this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Remember how English works:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you ask "How DDD emulated by HHH returns to its callers".
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Show the exact machine code trace of how DDD emulated
>>>>>>>>>>>> by HHH (according to the semantics of the x86 language)
>>>>>>>>>>>> reaches its own machine address 00002183
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No. The trace is to long, 
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Show the Trace of DDD emulated by HHH
>>>>>>>>>> and show the trace of DDD emulated by HHH
>>>>>>>>>> emulated by the executed HHH
>>>>>>>>>> Just show the DDD code traces.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> First you need to make a DDD that meets the requirements, and 
>>>>>>>>> that means that it calls an HHH that meets the requirements.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _DDD()
>>>>>>>> [00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>> [00002173] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
>>>>>>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
>>>>>>>> [0000217f] 83c404     add esp,+04
>>>>>>>> [00002182] 5d         pop ebp
>>>>>>>> [00002183] c3         ret
>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The is a hypothetical mental exercise and can be
>>>>>>>> accomplished even if the only DDD in the world
>>>>>>>> was simply typed into a word processor and never run.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But, must behave the rules of Computation Theory.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That means DDD, to be a program, includes the code of HHH, and 
>>>>>>> that HHH obeys the requirements of programs in computation 
>>>>>>> theory, which means that it always produces the same answer to 
>>>>>>> its caller for the same input.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note, its "Behavior" is defined as what it would do when run, 
>>>>>>> even if it never is,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No that is the big mistake of comp theory where it violates
>>>>>> its own rules.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> WHAT rule does it violate? And where do you get it from?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You have proven that you don't care.
>>>> You are like a bot programmed in rebuttal mode.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I guess you don't have an answer, AGAIN.
>>>
>>
>> Go back and look at the last 500 times
>> that I answer it.
>>
> 
> You make the claim, but can't show a reliable source for it.
> 

Look at Mike's correction of Joes.

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