Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: olcott is still disagreeing with the semantics of simulation Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2024 22:38:29 -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: Tue, 2 Jul 2024 02:38:29 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="1845994"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Bytes: 6182 Lines: 125 On 7/1/24 10:18 PM, olcott wrote: > On 7/1/2024 8:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 7/1/24 9:41 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/1/2024 7:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 7/1/24 12:03 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 7/1/2024 10:57 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>> Am Mon, 01 Jul 2024 07:49:54 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>> On 7/1/2024 6:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/30/24 10:27 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/30/2024 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/30/24 9:38 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/30/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/30/24 9:03 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/30/2024 7:44 PM, >>>>>>>>>>>> Richard >>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>> But that is NOT the "behavior of the input", and CAN NOT BE SO >>>>>>>>>>>> DEFINED. >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> DDD is  emulated by HHH which calls an emulated HHH(DDD) to >>>>>>>>>>> repeat the process until aborted. >>>>>>>>>> And, since the HHH that DDD calls will abort is emulation, it >>>>>>>>>> WILL >>>>>>>>>> return to DDD and it will return also. >>>>>> Right. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> The emulation stops, and the emulating behavor of HHH stops, but >>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>> the behavior of the input. >>>>>>> When DDD is no longer being emulated all of its behavior stops. >>>>>>> DDD is >>>>>>> the input. >>>>>> Again: emulating does not change what the input does of its own. >>>>>> Aborting >>>>>> an emulation is premature, as the input does not contain an abort. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *The title of this post is a lie* >>>>> *The title of this post is a lie* >>>>> *The title of this post is a lie* >>>> >>>> Nope, it is the TRUTH. >>>> >>>> OLCOTT is the one lying. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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); >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> *Each one of these cases meets 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 >>>>> >>>>>      H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D >>>>>      specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Right. and since the definition of a "Correct Simulation" that >>>> Professor Sipser would use (as with most of the world) is one that >>>> recreates the full behavior of the program represented by the input, >>> >>> No Professor Sipser would agree to 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] >>> >>> DDD is correctly emulated by HHH which calls an >>> emulated HHH(DDD) to repeat the process until aborted. >>> >>> >> >> Why do you say that? >> > > Because he already knows the truth of it. > Now that I am getting closer to death I may contact him again. > I have to perfect my new paper before doing this. > > *Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input P* > https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381636432_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_P > In other words, your logic presumes that it knows better than the person who spoke what he means., Just shows you are a DAMNED LIAR. You may be unplesantly surprized at his answer, or maybe he will just lay a bigger trap for you and let you just totally embarass yourself with your paper.