Path: ...!news.mixmin.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: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point
 --- in our head
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2024 21:31:51 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 169
Message-ID: <v9mdmn$19n30$4@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>
 <f5fb8734b03c46c7a70dceb81db2f2f2fc6fc424@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 04:31:52 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0832828dca420f70d701da47ce3141da";
	logging-data="1367136"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19CLdKZs3UDHCYfLIXOrFjx"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:feIAmUYJqrJiGDZWjt5dx9gEO4s=
In-Reply-To: <f5fb8734b03c46c7a70dceb81db2f2f2fc6fc424@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 8859

On 8/15/2024 8:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 8/15/24 12:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> It is a simuolation of *ONLY* the first N instructions of DDD, 

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