Path: ...!news.mixmin.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: Ben Bacarisse fails understand that deciders COMPUTE THE MAPPING
 FROM INPUTS --- I proved that I am correct and Mikko Ignored it
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2024 19:39:13 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 107
Message-ID: <vaqbo3$22im$2@dont-email.me>
References: <va104l$376ed$4@dont-email.me> <va24hl$3cvgv$1@dont-email.me>
 <431deaa157cdae1cae73a1b24268a61cf8ec2c1c@i2pn2.org>
 <va38qh$3ia79$1@dont-email.me>
 <7a1c569a699e79bfa146affbbae3eac7b91cd263@i2pn2.org>
 <va3f7o$3ipp3$1@dont-email.me>
 <729cc551062c13875686d266a5453a488058e81c@i2pn2.org>
 <va3kac$3nd5c$1@dont-email.me>
 <148bf4dd91f32379a6d81a621fb7ec3fc1e00db0@i2pn2.org>
 <va3lai$3nd5c$2@dont-email.me> <va46sd$3pr24$1@dont-email.me>
 <va4mle$3s0hu$1@dont-email.me>
 <5591ff08ed8f7b4bdf33813681e156b775efe0ec@i2pn2.org>
 <va63uu$2fo9$1@dont-email.me>
 <b0a86b6a1343ebb5f9112ae757768a7cbbc770b2@i2pn2.org>
 <va65r8$6ht7$1@dont-email.me>
 <da75188ffa7677bd2b6979c8fc6ba82119404306@i2pn2.org>
 <878qwn0wyz.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <efacnfsQdv-ErlT7nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <87le0jzc8f.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk> <vaj1kd$2kvg9$1@dont-email.me>
 <vamk31$3d76g$1@dont-email.me> <van30n$3f6c0$2@dont-email.me>
 <vap90d$3t06p$1@dont-email.me> <vaptvg$3vumk$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2024 19:39:15 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e5c54d11fe3c3fb33e0534dbbc4e2ad9";
	logging-data="68182"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18moCIlk4JSBxyIltCRK+zr"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Dmp0uJW4JCVUlDYyvGQPRO6qaYE=
In-Reply-To: <vaptvg$3vumk$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: nl, en-GB
Bytes: 6239

Op 29.aug.2024 om 15:44 schreef olcott:
> On 8/29/2024 2:46 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-08-28 11:51:51 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 8/28/2024 2:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> This group is for discussions about the theory of computation and 
>>>> related
>>>> topics. Discussion about people is off-topic.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Try to point to the tiniest lack of clarity in this fully
>>> specified concrete example.
>>>
>>> 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]
>>>
>>> HHH computes the mapping from DDD to behavior that never reaches
>>> its "return" statement on the basis of the x86 emulation of DDD
>>> by HHH according to the semantics of the x86 language.
>>>
>>> For all the  years people said that this simulation is incorrect
>>> never realizing that they were disagreeing with the semantics
>>> of the x86 language.
>>>
>>> Now that I point this out all that I get for "rebuttal" is bluster
>>> and double talk.
>>>
>>> The same thing applies to this more complex example that
>>> is simply over-the-head of most reviewers:
>>>
>>> int DD()
>>> {
>>>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>>    return Halt_Status;
>>> }
>>
>> Nice to see that you don't disagree.
>> But you should not use subject lines that are off-topic for the group.
>>
> 
> When a specific reviewer makes a specific mistake in
> reviewing my work related to this group I must refer
> to that specific reviewer's mistake to clear my name.
> 
> I could generalize it. No one person here besides myself
> sufficiently understands the details of how a simulating
> halt decider computes the mapping from an input finite
> string to the behavior that this finite sting specifies.

It looks more that you are the only person that does not understand 
these details, but who thinks that his dreams are a nice substitute for 
facts.

> 
> I specifically referred to Ben because he got everything
> else correctly. Most everyone else cannot even understand
> that correct simulation is defined by HHH emulating DDD
> according to the semantics of the x86 language.

Olcott does not even understand what the semantics of the x86 language 
is. He thinks that a finite string can have different behaviours 
according to the semantics of the x86 language, depending on whether it 
is directly executed, or simulated by different simulators, where the 
semantics could be different for each simulator.

> 
> Fred thinks the when DDD is emulated by HHH according to
> the semantics of the x86 language and this causes an
> emulated HHH to not halt then the emulation is wrong.

Olcott has a strange problem with the English language. He is unable to 
express himself. When he talks about what other people say, they never 
recognize themselves in his words. When he talks about other things he 
always expresses himself in self-contradictory ways. It is not clear to 
me whether this is only a problem in expressing himself, it looks as if 
he also has a problem in understanding English.

I never said such a thing.
I said that a finite string has a unique meaning according to the 
semantics of the x86 language. This meaning is not dependent on who or 
what interprets it. If the direct execution of a finite string shows 
that it describes a halting program, then the simulation of the same 
finite string which also shows that it is a halting program (such as 
HHH1 simulating HHH) is correct, but the simulation of the same finite 
string that decides that it is a non-halting program is incorrect. There 
is no difference between direct execution and simulation in the 
semantics of the x86 language for this finite string.

> 
> simlation
>