Path: ...!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: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point --- in our head
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2024 13:32:04 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 119
Message-ID: <v9klf4$u594$1@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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2024 12:32:05 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="12fc9c697b40d6367e6f93c8d12f250c";
	logging-data="988452"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18RK3iJis+FKVdNRhItgtZR"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:U2uqx5I0tum0yQemDG/sdHluXQo=
Bytes: 5671

On 2024-08-15 02:03:44 +0000, olcott said:

> 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.

The big mistake is yours where you violate the rules of computation
theory and honest discussion.

-- 
Mikko