Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic Subject: Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2024 19:53:01 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: References:

MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2024 23:53:01 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="1719674"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 9749 Lines: 203 On 6/30/24 7:18 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/30/2024 6:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/30/24 6:41 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/30/2024 4:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/30/24 5:48 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/30/2024 2:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/30/24 1:18 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/30/2024 3:42 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2024-06-29 16:09:19 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with >>>>>>>>> the semantics of the x86 language. That is isomorphic to >>>>>>>>> trying to get away with disagreeing with arithmetic. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> typedef void (*ptr)(); >>>>>>>>> int H0(ptr P); >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> void Infinite_Loop() >>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>> HERE: goto HERE; >>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> void Infinite_Recursion() >>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>> Infinite_Recursion(); >>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> void DDD() >>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>> H0(DDD); >>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> int main() >>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>> H0(Infinite_Loop); >>>>>>>>> H0(Infinite_Recursion); >>>>>>>>> H0(DDD); >>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Every C programmer that knows what an x86 emulator is knows >>>>>>>>> that when H0 emulates the machine language of Infinite_Loop, >>>>>>>>> Infinite_Recursion, and DDD that it must abort these emulations >>>>>>>>> so that itself can terminate normally. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> When this is construed as non-halting criteria then simulating >>>>>>>>> termination analyzer H0 is correct to reject these inputs as >>>>>>>>> non-halting by returning 0 to its caller. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Simulating termination analyzers must report on the behavior >>>>>>>>> that their finite string input specifies thus H0 must report >>>>>>>>> that DDD correctly emulated by H0 remains stuck in recursive >>>>>>>>> simulation. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 10/13/2022> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> People are trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics >>>>>>>>> of the x86 language by disagreeing that >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The call from DDD to HHH(DDD) when N steps of DDD are correctly >>>>>>>>> emulated by any pure function x86 emulator HHH cannot possibly >>>>>>>>> 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 100% complete and total rewrite of the prior paper* >>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381636432_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_P >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nothing above is or points to any evdence about the alleged >>>>>>>> disagreement. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Of course not. I only said the actual truth. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Richard just said that he affirms that when DDD correctly >>>>>>> simulated by HHH calls HHH(DDD) that this call returns even >>>>>>> though the semantics of the x86 language disagrees. >>>>>> >>>>>> What in the sematics of the x86 language, which INCLUDES that ever >>>>>> instruction WILL be followed by the next instruction, says that >>>>>> the HHH that is calld by DDD won't eventually return. >>>>>> >>>>>> Since you assert that HHH(DDD) called by main returns, then by >>>>>> your requreement that HHH be a "pure function" ALL copies of it >>>>>> will do the same thing. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, the EMULATION of HHH by HHH, but that can not be the >>>>>> "behavior of the input" as that "behavior" depends on more than >>>>>> just the input. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Therefore DDD correctly simulated by HHH DOES NOT HALT. >>>>> Thus HHH correctly reports that DDD DOES NOT HALT. >>>>> >>>> >>>> And then it doesn't correct emulate the input, and thus is a LIAR. >>>> >>> >>> You already know that you are the liar here and are >>> lying about not knowing this. >>> >>> _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 call from DDD to HHH(DDD) when N steps of DDD are >>> correctly emulated by any pure function x86 emulator >>> HHH at machine address 0000217a cannot possibly return. >>> >> >> The problem is that the N steps emulated by HHH are not, and CAN NOT >> be the "behavior of the input", > They need not be the FULL behavior of the input. > > H correctly simulates its input D until > H correctly simulates its input D until > H correctly simulates its input D until > H correctly simulates its input D until > H correctly simulates its input D until > H correctly simulates its input D until > H correctly simulates its input D until > H correctly simulates its input D until > H correctly simulates its input D until > H correctly simulates its input D until > H correctly simulates its input D until > H correctly simulates its input D until > H correctly simulates its input D until > H correctly simulates its input D until > H correctly simulates its input D until > H correctly simulates its input D until > H correctly simulates its input D until > H correctly simulates its input D until > H correctly simulates its input D until > H correctly simulates its input D until > H correctly simulates its input D until > H correctly simulates its input D until > H correctly simulates its input D until > H correctly simulates its input D until > H correctly simulates its input D until > H correctly simulates its input D until > H correctly simulates its input D until And that can NOT be the "Behavior of the Input" as it depends on more that just the input. Your question is just like asking what is two plus ____? > > H correctly determines that its simulated D would never ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========