Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Every sufficiently competent C programmer knows --- Semantic
 Property of Finite String
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2025 09:43:51 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <vr1fb8$1ev1a$5@dont-email.me>
References: <vqntaq$1jut5$1@dont-email.me> <vqp388$1tvqa$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqpdv9$202b2$2@dont-email.me> <vqperb$20c9k$2@dont-email.me>
 <E6mcnWv3nMa66036nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <vqs2n8$2knng$1@dont-email.me>
 <5429f6c8b8a8a79e06b4aeefe677cc54a2a636bf@i2pn2.org>
 <vqt9jp$2spcd$6@dont-email.me> <vqtag4$2t2hb$2@dont-email.me>
 <vqtgl0$2u7fo$1@dont-email.me>
 <924e22fc46d629b311b16a954dd0bed980a0a094@i2pn2.org>
 <vqvg7s$3s1qt$3@dont-email.me>
 <9e1b767d1ab11da5dc6f6fa164cae8d8deeada2b@i2pn2.org>
 <vr02sg$ad6n$1@dont-email.me>
 <ebe34b91a9a99302b79ea0ef8c5d395ebb0cc2f0@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2025 15:43:52 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="dafe6f14f3a328460e6bcedd003dc467";
	logging-data="1539114"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX189YR607ydqEBgVTHveWN3n"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:CgMMD4NapTHf9m3isAO2f666Mog=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250314-2, 3/14/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <ebe34b91a9a99302b79ea0ef8c5d395ebb0cc2f0@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 3791

On 3/14/2025 5:54 AM, joes wrote:
> Am Thu, 13 Mar 2025 21:05:04 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>> On 3/13/2025 6:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/13/25 4:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/13/2025 4:27 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>> Am Wed, 12 Mar 2025 21:41:34 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>> On 3/12/2025 7:56 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/12/2025 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> NOT WHEN IT IS STIPULATED THAT THE BEHAVIOR BEING MEASURED IS
>>>>>>> The direct execution of DDD
>>>>>> is proven to be different than the behavior of DDD emulated by HHH
>>>>>> according to the semantics of the x86 language.
>>>>> Which is weird, considering that a simulator should produce the same
>>>>> behaviour.
> 
> Right?
> 
>>>>>> DECIDERS ARE REQUIRED TO REPORT ON THE SEMANTIC OR SYNTACTIC
>>>>>> PROPERTY OF THEIR INPUT FINITE STRINGS.
>>>>> And not if the input called a different simulator that didn't abort.
>>>> DDD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own final
>>>> state no matter what HHH does.
>>>> DDD correctly emulated by HHH1 does reach its own final state.
>>> Which shows that HHH doesn't correctly emulate its input, unless you
>>> just lied and gave the two programs different inputs.
>> Someone that is not a liar could explain exactly how DDD emulated by HHH
>> according to the semantics of the C language must have the same behavior
>> as DDD emulated by HHH1 according to the semantics of the C language.

> I mean, HHH and HHH1 are both simulators, the former just aborts.
> 

The semantics of the finite string input DDD to HHH specifies
to continue to call HHH(DDD) in recursive simulation.

The semantics of the finite string input DDD to HHH1 specifies
to simulate to DDD exactly once.

Your reply is the first one today that is not dishonest.

>> Someone that is a liar will perpetually dodge this challenge.


-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer