Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.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: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point
 --- in our head
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2024 20:19:03 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 168
Message-ID: <v9lgqo$11vnf$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$1@dont-email.me>
 <54c2cf5516e1477512a9dc4df913c8747164c631@i2pn2.org>
 <v9jom1$q5o5$1@dont-email.me>
 <192e56d5bedc6f7e537857a2cf21af0d9a352edd@i2pn2.org>
 <v9jpms$qaaf$1@dont-email.me>
 <8f9bb44064cab68e97b57ace4988d14928448672@i2pn2.org>
 <v9jrmt$qio5$1@dont-email.me>
 <2ac05356328ae560088cb3887b3b64351fb7ac19@i2pn2.org>
 <v9lbmv$119bh$2@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 20:19:05 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6fe5c52353619c0eaa47b74070d55905";
	logging-data="1113839"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18zLn49lptUYj5QioXGA1UA"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:2xln1vLrHuL4MNYMZRCByvBHe9g=
In-Reply-To: <v9lbmv$119bh$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 8888

Op 15.aug.2024 om 18:51 schreef olcott:
> On 8/15/2024 6:03 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 8/14/24 11:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I make a claim and prove that it is correct
>>> and you change the subject and form a rebuttal
>>> of the changed subject.
>>>
>>
>> No, you make a claim and present a false argument, not a proof.
>>
> 
> A simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH according to
> the semantics of the x86 language is necessarily correct.
> 
> A correct simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH is
> sufficient to correctly predict the behavior of an unlimited
> simulation.

========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========