Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: The philosophy of computation reformulates existing ideas on a
 new basis ---x86 code is a liar?
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2024 08:36:07 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 75
Message-ID: <vgns0o$3qq7s$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vfli1h$fj8s$1@dont-email.me>
 <157b13f5b452420f1bb20db458bfa7b952449ecf@i2pn2.org>
 <vgc2ju$1bqmm$1@dont-email.me>
 <585823321cf0a5e579b855438cfbf93229b233ee@i2pn2.org>
 <vgdjdq$1jr80$1@dont-email.me>
 <b24e957b9f2af15c0ba7f18a3f7bfe2c6ff6419d@i2pn2.org>
 <vgegce$1phg2$1@dont-email.me>
 <e36afcb3758e0fb26d58019c08a24c6df0b562a7@i2pn2.org>
 <vgenp1$1uh1b$2@dont-email.me>
 <acecb0ba68d86b00c95fae1ecf690ec514aee26b@i2pn2.org>
 <vgfq86$24mon$1@dont-email.me>
 <e7a092c593ad1431a1bf6589d0102312545612ef@i2pn2.org>
 <vghb16$2ge1v$1@dont-email.me>
 <e51f21daadd358ef13801c918106c2fdc65a9f6b@i2pn2.org>
 <vghe3p$2gr3p$1@dont-email.me>
 <4cb98b3918d6745f53bb19582b59e786d4af5022@i2pn2.org>
 <vghgar$2h30o$1@dont-email.me>
 <e40629600e317dba47dd3d066d83899fa7b8a7ab@i2pn2.org>
 <vgiq1d$2nkqv$1@dont-email.me>
 <e84328012ce8d1e75b9b569f15f74fde315a0548@i2pn2.org>
 <vgjd2f$2qdc5$1@dont-email.me>
 <4654d9db2fa0906d7ab7a1c6c09139ab0b0110cd@i2pn2.org>
 <vgl7vl$37h38$4@dont-email.me> <vgnph1$3qcpl$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2024 15:36:08 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="529658128fc1f19cc0ff32f79f31d785";
	logging-data="4024572"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+QnT1HN01yzKICFaGa3QDY"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:/8wy54hYSCFCXa34Bc/HDlkpysI=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241109-2, 11/9/2024), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vgnph1$3qcpl$1@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Bytes: 5597

On 11/9/2024 7:53 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-11-08 14:41:57 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 11/8/2024 3:57 AM, joes wrote:
>>> Am Thu, 07 Nov 2024 15:56:31 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>> On 11/7/2024 3:24 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>> Am Thu, 07 Nov 2024 10:31:41 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>> On 11/7/2024 5:56 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/6/24 11:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is not what the machine code of DDD that calls the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine code of HHH says.
>>>>> The code by itself doesn’t say "do not return". That is a semantic
>>>>> property.
>>>> The code itself does say that within the semantics of the x86 language
>>>> as I have been saying all long hundreds of times.
>>> There is no "do not return" instruction.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, so that is part of the input, or it can't be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emulated.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Machine code of HHH says that it will abort its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emulation and return, so that is the only correct result
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> per the x86 language.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you really so ignorant of these things that you think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the fact that HHH returns to main() causes its 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDD to reach its own final state?
>>>>> Yes, because DDD calls HHH.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But the PROGRAM DDD, that it is emulating does. Just its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PARTIAL emulation of it is aborted before it gets there.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just repeating your errors, and not even trying to refute the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> errors pointed out, I guess that means you accept these as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> errors.
>>>>> There is only one program DDD, although it is invoked multiple times.
>>>>> We don’t care whether HHH actually simulates the return as long as it
>>>>> actually derives (not guesses) the right result.
>>>> DDD emulated by HHH does have different behavior than DDD emulated by
>>>> HHH1 or directly executed DDD.
>>>> DDD emulated by CANNOT POSSIBLY HALT no matter WTF HHH does: abort or
>>>> NEVER abort.
>>> When the instance of HHH that DDD calls aborts simulating, it returns
>>> to the simulated DDD, which then halts.
>>>
>>>> There <is> a key distinguishing difference in the behavior of DDD
>>>> emulated by HHH and DDD emulated by HHH1 or directly executed. It is
>>>> ridiculously stupid to simply ignore this for three f-cking years.
>>> That difference is not due to DDD.
>>>
>>
>> The semantic property of the finite string pair: HHH/DDD
>> unequivocally entails that DDD never reaches its final halt state.
> 
> No, it does not. You might say that the semantic property of the
> finite string "Olcott is an idiot" unequvocally entails that Olcott
> is an idiot but it does not.
> 

The semantic property of the finite string pair: HHH/DDD
unequivocally entails that DDD never reaches its final halt
state WITHIN THE SEMANTICS OF THE X86 LANGUAGE.

Why is everyone here a damned liar regarding DDD emulated
by HHH according to the semantics of the x86 language never
reaching its own "return" instruction final halt state?

I am sure that everyone here knows that they are a damned
liar about this because no one has even attempted to show
*EXACTLY HOW IT IS NOT TRUE*



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