Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the
 semantics of the x86 language
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2024 15:17:24 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 98
Message-ID: <v5pq4l$31tt$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v5pbjf$55h$1@dont-email.me> <v5pdmk$1gd9e$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v5pfj9$adt$1@dont-email.me> <v5pi18$1gd9e$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v5pifq$1hae$1@dont-email.me> <v5pkal$1gd9e$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v5pkss$1nkd$1@dont-email.me> <v5pm48$1gd9e$4@i2pn2.org>
 <v5pn47$27nl$1@dont-email.me> <v5ppnb$1gd9e$5@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2024 22:17:25 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="762b9261836a2c687f6b79db999518fc";
	logging-data="100285"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19V/rHd9XyfI1t48EfOAuYF"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:tFV4R7iH6zLOaecMfZx+MCXgiCQ=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v5ppnb$1gd9e$5@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 5155

On 6/29/2024 3:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/29/24 3:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/29/2024 2:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/29/24 2:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/29/2024 1:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/29/24 2:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>
>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>> until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
>> stop running unless aborted then
>>
>> H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
> 
> 
> 
> But that only applies if H determines a CORRECT SIMULATION per HIS 
> definition does not halt
> .
> That means the DIRECT EXECUTION of the program represented by the input 
> does not halt, since that is the DEFINITION of the results of a correct 
> simuation.
> 
> That also requires that the simulation does not stop until it reaches a 
> final state. You H neither does that nor correctly determines that 
> (since it does halt) thus you can never use the second paragraph to be 
> allowed to abort, even though you do anyway, which is why you get the 
> wrong answer.
> 
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *N steps of correct simulation are specified*
>>>>>> H correctly simulates its input D until H
>>>>>> H correctly simulates its input D until H
>>>>>> H correctly simulates its input D until H
>>>>>> H correctly simulates its input D until H
>>>>>
>>>>> Which does not determine the ACTUAL behavor
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _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]
>>>>
>>>> That you already know that it does prove that DDD correctly
>>>> emulated by HHH would never stop running unless aborted
>>>> or out-of-memory error
>>>>
>>>> *proves that you are trying to get away with a bald-faced lie*
>>>> I really hope that you repent before it is too late.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nope, just shows your stupidity, as the above code has NO defined 
>>> behavior as it accesses code that is not defined by it.
>>>
>>
>> *Its behavior is completely defined by*
>> (a) The finite string x86 machine code that includes
>>      the recursive emulation call from DDD to HHH(DDD).
> 
> But by the semantics of the x86 langugage, the call to HHH does NOT do a 
> "recursive simulation" since that is not a term in that language.
> 
> The Call to HHH just cause the
> 
>>
>> (b) The semantics of the x86 language.
>>
>> (c) That HHH is an x86 emulator that correctly emulates
>>      N steps of DDD.
> 
> Which isn't an ACTUALY correct emulation, but only a PARTIAL correct 
> emulation (since correct emulation implies EVERY instruction but a 
> terminal one is followed by the next instruction).
> 
> The key fact is that PARTIAL emulation doesn't reveal the future of the 
> behavior past the point of the emulation. 

In other words you are trying to get away with claiming
that professor Sipser made a stupid mistake:

H correctly simulates its input D until H correctly determines
that its simulated D would never stop running unless aborted


-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer