Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!news.in-chemnitz.de!news.swapon.de!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
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2024 10:32:14 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 114
Message-ID: <vas02f$ds5d$2@dont-email.me>
References: <va104l$376ed$4@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>
 <vaqbo3$22im$2@dont-email.me> <vaqo99$4h1p$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2024 10:32:16 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c1e0bd1d1eb8fbe1ae40de0a50d6113d";
	logging-data="454829"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18FriMGvQWaGEGS0zXscUX1"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:rgA2NWgY8TcHRqDHQlRfYUf9gvQ=
In-Reply-To: <vaqo99$4h1p$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 6580

Op 29.aug.2024 om 23:13 schreef olcott:
> On 8/29/2024 12:39 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> 
> One cannot simply ignore the actual behavior of DDD emulated
> by HHH according to the semantics of the x86 language because
> this actual behavior is not the behavior that one expects or
> one would like to have.

You cannot deny the semantics of the x86 language simply because you do 
not like it, or you prefer another behaviour.
The specification of the semantics of the x86 language does not give 
room for a context depending interpretation. It is independent on which 
processor, or which simulator processes this finite string.

> 
> An actual world class emulator is correctly emulating this.

And when this unmodified world class simulator processed the program 
with the aborting HHH, it showed that the program was halting.

 > One is not free to disagree without being WRONG.
 >

Exactly! Think about it! This world class simulator showed that the 
program was halting!

But you modified this world class simulator to prematurely stop the 
simulation, skipping the last few instructions of a halting program.
So, we do not blame the world class simulator, but the person that 
modified it to stop the simulation prematurely.

It is *correct* to disagree with invalid modifications to a world class 
simulator. Thinking that these modification kept the simulator intact is 
WRONG.