Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Fred. Zwarts" Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point --- in our head Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2024 20:19:03 +0200 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 168 Message-ID: References: <561f876601b0329c0260bac26f8b6dfb6e28647f@i2pn2.org> <190847da05ab48555c036a799e768f555461eb43@i2pn2.org> <28bda6bb7d9efdacadf3de76c85a4857d0f83cb3@i2pn2.org> <54c2cf5516e1477512a9dc4df913c8747164c631@i2pn2.org> <192e56d5bedc6f7e537857a2cf21af0d9a352edd@i2pn2.org> <8f9bb44064cab68e97b57ace4988d14928448672@i2pn2.org> <2ac05356328ae560088cb3887b3b64351fb7ac19@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2024 20:19:05 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6fe5c52353619c0eaa47b74070d55905"; logging-data="1113839"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18zLn49lptUYj5QioXGA1UA" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:2xln1vLrHuL4MNYMZRCByvBHe9g= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-GB Bytes: 8888 Op 15.aug.2024 om 18:51 schreef olcott: > On 8/15/2024 6:03 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 8/14/24 11:12 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 8/14/2024 10:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 8/14/24 10:38 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 8/14/2024 9:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 8/14/24 10:20 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 8/14/2024 9:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 8/14/24 10:03 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2024 6:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/24 9:34 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2024 6:22 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/24 12:24 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/13/2024 11:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/13/24 11:48 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/13/2024 10:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/13/24 10:38 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/13/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/13/24 8:52 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> void DDD() >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD); >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    return; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _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] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> according to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the semantics of the x86 language is necessarily >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, it is just the correct PARTIAL emulation of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first N instructions of DDD, and not of all of DDD, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is what I said dufuss. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. You didn't. I added clairifying words, pointing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out why you claim is incorrect. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For an emulation to be "correct" it must be complete, as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> partial emulations are only partially correct, so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without the partial modifier, they are not correct. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A complete emulation of one instruction is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a complete emulation of one instruction >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A correct simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sufficient to correctly predict the behavior of an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unlimited >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, if a HHH returns to its caller, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Try to show exactly how DDD emulated by HHH returns to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its caller* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (the first one doesn't even have a caller) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Use the above machine language instructions to show this. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Remember how English works: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you ask "How DDD emulated by HHH returns to its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> callers". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Show the exact machine code trace of how DDD emulated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by HHH (according to the semantics of the x86 language) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaches its own machine address 00002183 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. The trace is to long, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Show the Trace of DDD emulated by HHH >>>>>>>>>>>>> and show the trace of DDD emulated by HHH >>>>>>>>>>>>> emulated by the executed HHH >>>>>>>>>>>>> Just show the DDD code traces. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> First you need to make a DDD that meets the requirements, >>>>>>>>>>>> and that means that it calls an HHH that meets the >>>>>>>>>>>> requirements. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> _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] >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The is a hypothetical mental exercise and can be >>>>>>>>>>> accomplished even if the only DDD in the world >>>>>>>>>>> was simply typed into a word processor and never run. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> But, must behave the rules of Computation Theory. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That means DDD, to be a program, includes the code of HHH, and >>>>>>>>>> that HHH obeys the requirements of programs in computation >>>>>>>>>> theory, which means that it always produces the same answer to >>>>>>>>>> its caller for the same input. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Note, its "Behavior" is defined as what it would do when run, >>>>>>>>>> even if it never is, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No that is the big mistake of comp theory where it violates >>>>>>>>> its own rules. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> WHAT rule does it violate? And where do you get it from? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You have proven that you don't care. >>>>>>> You are like a bot programmed in rebuttal mode. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I guess you don't have an answer, AGAIN. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Go back and look at the last 500 times >>>>> that I answer it. >>>>> >>>> >>>> You make the claim, but can't show a reliable source for it. >>>> >>> >>> I make a claim and prove that it is correct >>> and you change the subject and form a rebuttal >>> of the changed subject. >>> >> >> No, you make a claim and present a false argument, not a proof. >> > > A simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH according to > the semantics of the x86 language is necessarily correct. > > A correct simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH is > sufficient to correctly predict the behavior of an unlimited > simulation. ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========