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 20:12:49 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 54
Message-ID: <vr2k6i$2deaa$4@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>
 <vr1fb8$1ev1a$5@dont-email.me> <vr1tpd$1rpd0$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2025 02:12:50 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="089deb6da5a8e3479213476df9745f18";
	logging-data="2537802"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+F/9Brzaz5wcFQ9lwdpYKc"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:al14KKir3d1BSI1sSDsvcbTkJ5w=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <vr1tpd$1rpd0$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250314-6, 3/14/2025), Outbound message

On 3/14/2025 1:50 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 14.mrt.2025 om 15:43 schreef olcott:
>> 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.
> 
> Factual incorrect, because HHH1 also simulates HHH simulating DDD, so it 
> simulates DDD at least twice in recursive simulation. There is a finite 
> recursion. HHH misses the fact that there is a finite recursion, because 
> it aborts before it can see that.

You already said that DDD simulated by HHH never reaches
its final state in any finite number of steps.

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