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
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2024 23:20:06 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 109
Message-ID: <v9mk1m$1af3c$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$1@dont-email.me>
 <190847da05ab48555c036a799e768f555461eb43@i2pn2.org>
 <v9kdmq$t1s7$1@dont-email.me> <v9l533$10ack$1@dont-email.me>
 <31884066c1cc49b47c3d4ea6009d04f2edca2795@i2pn2.org>
 <v9mdd9$19n30$2@dont-email.me>
 <025e6c51c3de32f320d661c1d6c0637370bb3ba9@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 06:20:07 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0832828dca420f70d701da47ce3141da";
	logging-data="1391724"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/WXYaKTS3sCNAaGxoK3ziR"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:qqhPtdVRwGbjCEfGGdFwn3TbJzQ=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <025e6c51c3de32f320d661c1d6c0637370bb3ba9@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 5609

On 8/15/2024 11:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 8/15/24 10:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 8/15/2024 8:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 8/15/24 10:58 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 8/15/2024 3:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-08-14 04:04:23 +0000, Richard Damon said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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, and since you HHH doesn't meet your 
>>>>>> requirements (since it isn't a pure function) you can't give me a 
>>>>>> compldte input to trace.
>>>>>
>>>>> The trace is regular enough that we could define a formal language for
>>>>> the trace and construct an analyzer program to detect deviations from
>>>>> x86 semnatics and hidden inputs.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There are no deviations. The x86utm operating system is
>>>> built from libx86emu that has had decades of development
>>>> effort. HHH really does emulate itself emulating DDD.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And then ignores that emulation,
>>
>> counter-factual but you don't care.
>>
> 
> Then why does it say there were no conditional branches in the 
> simulation of the code of the program "DDD" where there were in the 
> simulation of the HHH that was called by DDD and thus part of the 
> program DDD.

Never heard of dividing the program under test from the test program?
HHH is reporting on the behavior of DDD.

> 
> Or, are you going to admit that you fail to understand the definition of 
> a program, and thus your last two decades of work just went up in the 
> smoke of error due to self-created ignorance.


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