Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Verified facts regarding the software engineering of DDD, HHH,
 and HHH1 ---
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2024 16:22:10 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <vfj4vi$3iq0i$5@i2pn2.org>
References: <vf3eu5$fbb3$2@dont-email.me> <vf8i1g$1h5mj$4@dont-email.me>
	<45ea7a6da46453c9da62c1149fa1cf7739218c5f@i2pn2.org>
	<vf9qai$1scol$1@dont-email.me>
	<2a210ab064b3a8c3397600b4fe87aa390868bb12@i2pn2.org>
	<vf9sk6$1sfva$2@dont-email.me>
	<4c67570b4898e14665bde2dfdf473130b89b7dd4@i2pn2.org>
	<vfaqe7$21k64$1@dont-email.me>
	<f789d3ef27e3000f04feb3df4fc561c5da02381f@i2pn2.org>
	<vfcbl5$2b6h0$2@dont-email.me>
	<b707850664ad22bb1172006f4e24a27633ff1a4d@i2pn2.org>
	<vfe344$2o992$1@dont-email.me>
	<94449dae60f42358ae29bb710ca9bc3b18c60ad7@i2pn2.org>
	<vfeqqo$2ruhp$1@dont-email.me>
	<0553e6ab73fa9a21f062de4d645549ae48fd0a64@i2pn2.org>
	<vfg6us$36im7$2@dont-email.me>
	<da2d4f48cb3b9ac2e44b6f9c9ab28adb3022acb1@i2pn2.org>
	<vfh428$3bkkv$2@dont-email.me>
	<c72aa667027121011042e8b4413d343f3c61bdd1@i2pn2.org>
	<vfh8vt$3cdsr$2@dont-email.me>
	<8e17863681e1f32f132966f41699e57e5c322b41@i2pn2.org>
	<vfirsv$3ner2$6@dont-email.me> <vfj28k$3j3qf$6@i2pn2.org>
	<vfj2o7$3p235$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2024 16:22:10 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3762194"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
Bytes: 6296
Lines: 95

Am Sat, 26 Oct 2024 10:44:07 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 10/26/2024 10:35 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 10/26/24 9:47 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/25/2024 11:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 10/25/24 7:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/25/2024 5:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/25/24 5:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/25/2024 10:45 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/25/24 9:37 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/25/2024 7:27 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/24/24 9:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/24/2024 6:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/24/24 2:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/23/2024 9:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/23/24 10:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/23/2024 6:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/23/24 8:33 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/23/2024 6:12 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/23/24 12:04 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/22/2024 10:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/22/24 11:25 PM, olcott wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When termination analyzers analyze C functions for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> termination the measure of termination is reaching the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "return" statement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rigjt, when the BEHAIVIOR of the function is to do so,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and that behavior is DEFINED to be the results of direct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is not DDD emulated by HHH according to the semantics
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the x86 language. That is DDD emulated by HHH1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> according to the semantics of the x86 language.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Depends on which of the equivocations you are meaning.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we are talking about the behavior of the PROGRAM DDD.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words you are saying that DDD must be emulated by
>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH violating the semantics of the x86 language.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Where did I say that?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The directly executed DDD has the same behavior as DDD
>>>>>>>>>>> emulated by HHH1 according to the semantics of the x86
>>>>>>>>>>> language.
>>>>>>>>>>> The only way for DDD emulated by HHH to have this same
>>>>>>>>>>> behavior (that includes DDD calling itself) is to ignore the
>>>>>>>>>>> call to itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nope, as "according to the semantics of the x86 language" is an
>>>>>>>>>> OBJECTIVE standard, and thus the only meaning of behavior of
>>>>>>>>>> "the call itself" is to look at what the x86 processor does on
>>>>>>>>>> that call.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *That lame excuse tries to pretend that UTMs don't exist*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope. But UTMs will never abort their emulation of their input,
>>>>>>>> or they are not a UTM.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You claimed that emulation is an incorrect basis and I proved you
>>>>>>> wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, I said a PARTIAL emulation is an incorrect basis.
>>>>>>
>>>>> *This does not say that*
>>>>> On 10/25/2024 7:27 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>  > Nope, as "according to the semantics of the x86 language" is an
>>>>>  > OBJECTIVE standard, and thus the only meaning of behavior of
>>>>>  > "the call
>>>>>  > itself" is to look at what the x86 processor does on that call.
>>>>>
>>>>> This does reject emulation out-of-hand and forbids an x86 processor
>>>>> to emulate itself recursively as is required to form the isomorphism
>>>>> to the halting problem.
>>>>>
>>>> Nope, the key is that *IF* you can show that the results of the
>>>> emulation will match the behavior of the actual machine,
>>>
>>> Then you can show that the emulation by HHH disobeys the semantics of
>>> the x86 language:
>>> When DDD is emulated by HHH according to the semantics of the x86
>>> language then HHH must emulate itself emulating DDD.
>>>
>> Right, and either it follows the rules of the x86 language and NEVER
>> stop, or it disobeys the requirements of the x86 language to stop its
>> emulaiton and return.
>> 
> In other words after all of these years you still don't get this:
>     "simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until"
> I have told you at least 500 times and your ADD forces you to never see
> the *UNTIL*
"Until" means that it stops simulating, which is not specified in x86.

-- 
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.