Path: 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 10:04:51 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 105
Message-ID: <vr1gij$1ev1a$7@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$1@dont-email.me>
 <033b052fccc451753d03d559358b9f1d2fd6623b@i2pn2.org>
 <vr0h53$ntm8$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2025 16:04:52 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="dafe6f14f3a328460e6bcedd003dc467";
	logging-data="1539114"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1994VebaDWiazD8YPrgKZ/0"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:tkU/GVkXS65MyZWItToF92GcBVU=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250314-2, 3/14/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vr0h53$ntm8$1@dont-email.me>

On 3/14/2025 1:08 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 14/03/2025 03:03, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/13/25 9:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> 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:
> 
> <snip>
> 
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> _DDD()
>>> [00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
>>> [00002173] 8bec       mov  ebp,esp  ; housekeeping
>>> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
>>> [0000217f] 83c404     add  esp,+04
>>> [00002182] 5d         pop  ebp
>>> [00002183] c3         ret
>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>>
>> Not a program, and can not be correctly emulated beyond address 
>> 0000217A as it goes outside the input.
> 
> And also irrelevant, because there are only two possibilities: his code 
> works correctly, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, clearly he's wrong; and 
> if it does, it dumps us right back on Turing's doorstep, which means 
> he's wrong.
> 
> He studiously avoids addressing this point, and that avoidance is 
> precisely what I'd expect from a crank.
> 
> <snip>
> 
>>> It is very common for people to be so well indoctrinated
>>> that they reject verified facts out-of-hand without review.
>>
>> Yes, as you have because you have brainwashed yourself into refusing 
>> to look at what you are saying,
> 
> And what other people are saying.
> 
>> to the point that you have admitted that all you work is just a fraud 
>> since you admit that you have changed core terms of art from the 
>> definitions in the system, violating the basic premise of logic.
>>
>>>
>>>> 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
>>
>> WHAT "PROOF"?
> 
> If I'm reading this right it's actually a proof by confession, which is 
> a new one on me. He's admitting that in some situations his simulation 
> gives the wrong answers, which seems to me to be a straightforward of 
> admission of defeat. If his simulation works, Turing stands, and if it 
> fails to work, it has nothing to say. Either way, QED.
> 
> <snip>
> 


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

DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach
its own "return" instruction in any finite number of
correctly simulated steps.

That you are clueless about the semantics of something
as simple as a tiny C function proves that you are not
competent to review my work.

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