Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic Subject: Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2024 10:20:20 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 102 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2024 17:20:21 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f83257e6e5a87f489aa8241c55498376"; logging-data="1200444"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/zNpZNFgwDUmQPVaIX80so" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:lCeVDQfWUF6Hu1QUzH3hTvd8DWY= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 4625 On 7/1/2024 10:12 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: > Op 01.jul.2024 om 16:50 schreef olcott: >> On 7/1/2024 9:37 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>> Op 01.jul.2024 om 14:46 schreef olcott: >>>> On 7/1/2024 3:32 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>> >>>> _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] >>>> >>>> DDD is correctly emulated by HHH which calls an >>>> emulated HHH(DDD) to repeat the process until aborted. >>>> Once aborted the DDD emulated by HHH immediately stops. >>>> >>>> At no point in this emulation does the call from DDD >>>> correctly emulated by HHH to HHH(DDD) ever return. >>>> >>>> You can understand this or fail to understand this >>>> disagreement is flat out incorrect. >>> >>> I understand it, but that does not contradict that the abort is one >>> cycle too soon, which makes it incorrect. >> >> On 7/1/2024 9:27 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>  > Not aborting will loop infinitely. >> >> That you disagree with your own self proves that you are wrong. > > I did not disagree with myself. It is only you inability to understand > simple facts that : > It is not: Either aborting or not-aborting is incorrect, > but: Both aborting and not-aborting are incorrect. > Therefore, proving that not-aborting is incorrect does not prove that > aborting is correct. > You never found an error in this reasoning, but only repeat that > not-aborting is incorrect. > > Somehow you seem to think that from "not-aborting is incorrect" it > follows that "aborting is correct". > > Try to think a little bit. Both are incorrect. > >> >> If it is ever the case that >>  > Not aborting will loop infinitely. >> THIS PROVES THAT ABORTING IS NECESSARILY CORRECT >> >>      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 >> >> IT IS 100% COMPLETELY CORRECT TO ABORT >> > > It must abort to terminate the loop if the simulated HHH would not > terminate, but this simulated HHH does return after N+1 cycles and > therefore DDD will return, so here no abort is needed. > Abort is only needed if simulating an infinite recursion, not a N-cycle > recursion. > You are simply not bright enough to sufficiently understand this criteria. 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 void Infinite_Loop() { HERE: goto HERE; } void Infinite_Recursion() { Infinite_Recursion(); } void DDD() { HHH(DDD); } int main() { HHH(Infinite_Loop); HHH(Infinite_Recursion); HHH(DDD); } HHH is correct to abort all three. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer