Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point --- in our head Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2024 21:31:51 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 169 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: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 04:31:52 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0832828dca420f70d701da47ce3141da"; logging-data="1367136"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19CLdKZs3UDHCYfLIXOrFjx" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:feIAmUYJqrJiGDZWjt5dx9gEO4s= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 8859 On 8/15/2024 8:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 8/15/24 12:51 PM, olcott wrote: >> 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. > > It is a simuolation of *ONLY* the first N instructions of DDD, ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========