Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: The philosophy of computation reformulates existing ideas on a
 new basis ---x86 code is a liar?
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2024 12:01:14 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <1d4a9cb2b079c3678a5960debf387adb661095cf@i2pn2.org>
References: <vfli1h$fj8s$1@dont-email.me> <vgbskb$172co$1@dont-email.me>
 <157b13f5b452420f1bb20db458bfa7b952449ecf@i2pn2.org>
 <vgc2ju$1bqmm$1@dont-email.me>
 <585823321cf0a5e579b855438cfbf93229b233ee@i2pn2.org>
 <vgdjdq$1jr80$1@dont-email.me>
 <b24e957b9f2af15c0ba7f18a3f7bfe2c6ff6419d@i2pn2.org>
 <vgegce$1phg2$1@dont-email.me>
 <e36afcb3758e0fb26d58019c08a24c6df0b562a7@i2pn2.org>
 <vgenp1$1uh1b$2@dont-email.me>
 <acecb0ba68d86b00c95fae1ecf690ec514aee26b@i2pn2.org>
 <vgfq86$24mon$1@dont-email.me>
 <e7a092c593ad1431a1bf6589d0102312545612ef@i2pn2.org>
 <vghb16$2ge1v$1@dont-email.me>
 <e51f21daadd358ef13801c918106c2fdc65a9f6b@i2pn2.org>
 <vghe3p$2gr3p$1@dont-email.me>
 <4cb98b3918d6745f53bb19582b59e786d4af5022@i2pn2.org>
 <vghgar$2h30o$1@dont-email.me>
 <e40629600e317dba47dd3d066d83899fa7b8a7ab@i2pn2.org>
 <vgiq1d$2nkqv$1@dont-email.me>
 <e84328012ce8d1e75b9b569f15f74fde315a0548@i2pn2.org>
 <vgjd2f$2qdc5$1@dont-email.me>
 <4654d9db2fa0906d7ab7a1c6c09139ab0b0110cd@i2pn2.org>
 <vgl7vl$37h38$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2024 17:01:15 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1548299"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <vgl7vl$37h38$4@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5089
Lines: 63

On 11/8/24 9:41 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/8/2024 3:57 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Thu, 07 Nov 2024 15:56:31 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 11/7/2024 3:24 PM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Thu, 07 Nov 2024 10:31:41 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> On 11/7/2024 5:56 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/6/24 11:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is not what the machine code of DDD that calls the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine code of HHH says.
>>>> The code by itself doesn’t say "do not return". That is a semantic
>>>> property.
>>> The code itself does say that within the semantics of the x86 language
>>> as I have been saying all long hundreds of times.
>> There is no "do not return" instruction.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, so that is part of the input, or it can't be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emulated.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Machine code of HHH says that it will abort its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emulation and return, so that is the only correct result
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> per the x86 language.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you really so ignorant of these things that you think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the fact that HHH returns to main() causes its emulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDD to reach its own final state?
>>>> Yes, because DDD calls HHH.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But the PROGRAM DDD, that it is emulating does. Just its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PARTIAL emulation of it is aborted before it gets there.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Just repeating your errors, and not even trying to refute the
>>>>>>>>>>>> errors pointed out, I guess that means you accept these as
>>>>>>>>>>>> errors.
>>>> There is only one program DDD, although it is invoked multiple times.
>>>> We don’t care whether HHH actually simulates the return as long as it
>>>> actually derives (not guesses) the right result.
>>> DDD emulated by HHH does have different behavior than DDD emulated by
>>> HHH1 or directly executed DDD.
>>> DDD emulated by CANNOT POSSIBLY HALT no matter WTF HHH does: abort or
>>> NEVER abort.
>> When the instance of HHH that DDD calls aborts simulating, it returns
>> to the simulated DDD, which then halts.
>>
>>> There <is> a key distinguishing difference in the behavior of DDD
>>> emulated by HHH and DDD emulated by HHH1 or directly executed. It is
>>> ridiculously stupid to simply ignore this for three f-cking years.
>> That difference is not due to DDD.
>>
> 
> The semantic property of the finite string pair: HHH/DDD
> unequivocally entails that DDD never reaches its final halt state.
> 

First, your finite string you call "DDD" doesn't HAVE "semantics" as it 
is incomplete.

It is just a non-sense statement, like "what is 1 plus?"

When we include the representaiton for HHH, then the Halting Semantic 
Property of the Finite String DDD/HHH will be Halting if HHH(DDD) 
returns an answer, as a semantic property of an input is the results of 
procesing that input until it reaches a final state, or has been 
processed for an unbounded number of steps.

What you are trying to use is just not a "semantic property" of that 
input, except as a property of HHH (not just DDD).