Path: ...!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 09:50:40 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 104
Message-ID: <vr1fo0$1ev1a$6@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> <vqvgb4$3kfru$5@dont-email.me>
 <vqvi94$3tk5h$1@dont-email.me> <vr01sq$9741$1@dont-email.me>
 <0672fec6cb2a5c56fd674bbbb3d2b2101c8f295f@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 15:50:42 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="dafe6f14f3a328460e6bcedd003dc467";
	logging-data="1539114"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/qirM+yCfNt3qNPAq5oD6a"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:cSGIo8IIxmGTB7zGX6dvhQV1FDI=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <0672fec6cb2a5c56fd674bbbb3d2b2101c8f295f@i2pn2.org>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250314-2, 3/14/2025), Outbound message
Bytes: 6006

On 3/14/2025 6:02 AM, joes wrote:
> Am Thu, 13 Mar 2025 20:48:09 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>> On 3/13/2025 4:21 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> On 13/03/2025 20:48, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 3/13/2025 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.
> 
> Doesn't it?
> 
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Replacing the code of HHH with an unconditional simulator and
>>>>> subsequently running HHH(DD) cannot possibly reach its own final
>>>>> state no matter what HHH does.
>>>>> Replacing the code of HHH1 with an unconditional simulator and
>>>>> subsequently running HHH1(DD) does reach its own final state.
>>>>> If someone was not a liar they would say that these are different
>>>>> computations.
>>>>>
>>>> Only because one changes the code that DD runs and one doesn't
>>>
>>> It hardly matters. Either his emulation faithfully and correctly
>>> establishes and reports (for EVERY program anyone cares to feed it) the
>>> actual halting behaviour exhibited by the program it's emulating, or it
>>> doesn't.
>>>
>> That everyone expects the behavior of the directly executed DDD to be
>> the same as DDD correctly emulated by HHH1 is verified as a factually
>> correct expectation.
>> That everyone expects the behavior of the directly executed DDD to be
>> the same as DDD correctly emulated by HHH is verified as a factually
>> incorrect expectation.
> A simulation should not differ from the actual execution. Why should it?
> 
>>> If it doesn't, it doesn't, and it's a lot of fuss over nothing.
>>> But if it /does/, then we're right back at Turing's proof, because a
>>> working emulator is just another way of running the code, and is
>>> therefore superfluous to requirements. It adds nothing to the debate,
>>> because we can just run the code and get the same answer the emulator
>>> would provide.
>>>
>> For the first time in the history of mankind it proves that a simulation
>> of a virtual machine according to the semantics of this machine language
>> DOES NOT ALWAYS HAVE THE SAME BEHAVIOR AS THE DIRECT EXECUTION OF THIS
>> SAME MACHINE

> Bold claim. How does that make sense?
> 
>> PATHOLOGICAL SELF REFERENCE DOES CHANGE SEMANTICS
> As opposed to what? Of course a different program has different semantics.
> 
>> This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true"
>> The exact same word-for-word sentence IS TRUE IN THIS DIFFERING CONTEXT
>> THAT DOES NOT HAVE PSR.

> It's a different sentence.
> 
It is the same word-for-word sentence with
pathological self-reference removed.

>>> In other words, the emulator is a canard, a distraction, a cul-de-sac,
>>> and a complete waste of time. If it happens to work, great! Well done
>>> that man. But it doesn't affect the HP logic one microscopically
>>> minuscule millijot.
>> The emulator proves the actual behavior specified by the INPUT

> No, the direct execution does.
> 

We really cannot simply ignore the pathological self-reference
specified by DDD to HHH  and not specified by DDD to HHH1.

>> That people disagree with the semantics of the x86 language proves how
>> deeply indoctrinated they are.
> With what semantics?

I will give it to you in C

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}

The above code specifies that
DDD correctly simulated by HHH specifies that DDD will
continue to call HHH(DDD) in recursive simulation and
WILL NOT CALL HHH1(DDD) IN RECURSIVE SIMULATION.

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