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: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: The philosophy of computation reformulates existing ideas on a new basis ---x86 code is a liar?
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2024 12:54:05 +0200
Organization: -
Lines: 70
Message-ID: <vgsnod$upmp$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vfli1h$fj8s$1@dont-email.me> <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> <vgns0o$3qq7s$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2024 11:54:06 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="88f660726df1b76a05d2b3eb8bbe5a8c";
	logging-data="1009369"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX197jjPmHxYRGS30OYeYGYwR"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:vv2A+0bs/cw6oNbrLrzJ6VuNtR0=
Bytes: 5195

On 2024-11-09 14:36:07 +0000, olcott said:

> 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.

The expression "The semantic property" is incorrect when it is not
clear from context which semantic property is meant. Note that a
string per se does not have semantic properties, they all come
from interpretrations.

-- 
Mikko