Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Every sufficiently competent C programmer knows --- Semantic Property of Finite String Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2025 09:50:40 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 104 Message-ID: References: <5429f6c8b8a8a79e06b4aeefe677cc54a2a636bf@i2pn2.org> <924e22fc46d629b311b16a954dd0bed980a0a094@i2pn2.org> <0672fec6cb2a5c56fd674bbbb3d2b2101c8f295f@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2025 15:50:42 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="dafe6f14f3a328460e6bcedd003dc467"; logging-data="1539114"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/qirM+yCfNt3qNPAq5oD6a" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:cSGIo8IIxmGTB7zGX6dvhQV1FDI= X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <0672fec6cb2a5c56fd674bbbb3d2b2101c8f295f@i2pn2.org> X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250314-2, 3/14/2025), Outbound message Bytes: 6006 On 3/14/2025 6:02 AM, joes wrote: > Am Thu, 13 Mar 2025 20:48:09 -0500 schrieb olcott: >> On 3/13/2025 4:21 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>> On 13/03/2025 20:48, dbush wrote: >>>> On 3/13/2025 4:46 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 3/13/2025 4:27 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>> Am Wed, 12 Mar 2025 21:41:34 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>> On 3/12/2025 7:56 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>> On 3/12/2025 8:41 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> NOT WHEN IT IS STIPULATED THAT THE BEHAVIOR BEING MEASURED IS >>>>>>>> The direct execution of DDD >>>>>>> is proven to be different than the behavior of DDD emulated by HHH >>>>>>> according to the semantics of the x86 language. >>>>>> Which is weird, considering that a simulator should produce the same >>>>>> behaviour. > > Doesn't it? > >>>>>>> DECIDERS ARE REQUIRED TO REPORT ON THE SEMANTIC OR SYNTACTIC >>>>>>> PROPERTY OF THEIR INPUT FINITE STRINGS. >>>>>> And not if the input called a different simulator that didn't abort. >>>>>> >>>>> Replacing the code of HHH with an unconditional simulator and >>>>> subsequently running HHH(DD) cannot possibly reach its own final >>>>> state no matter what HHH does. >>>>> Replacing the code of HHH1 with an unconditional simulator and >>>>> subsequently running HHH1(DD) does reach its own final state. >>>>> If someone was not a liar they would say that these are different >>>>> computations. >>>>> >>>> Only because one changes the code that DD runs and one doesn't >>> >>> It hardly matters. Either his emulation faithfully and correctly >>> establishes and reports (for EVERY program anyone cares to feed it) the >>> actual halting behaviour exhibited by the program it's emulating, or it >>> doesn't. >>> >> That everyone expects the behavior of the directly executed DDD to be >> the same as DDD correctly emulated by HHH1 is verified as a factually >> correct expectation. >> That everyone expects the behavior of the directly executed DDD to be >> the same as DDD correctly emulated by HHH is verified as a factually >> incorrect expectation. > A simulation should not differ from the actual execution. Why should it? > >>> If it doesn't, it doesn't, and it's a lot of fuss over nothing. >>> But if it /does/, then we're right back at Turing's proof, because a >>> working emulator is just another way of running the code, and is >>> therefore superfluous to requirements. It adds nothing to the debate, >>> because we can just run the code and get the same answer the emulator >>> would provide. >>> >> For the first time in the history of mankind it proves that a simulation >> of a virtual machine according to the semantics of this machine language >> DOES NOT ALWAYS HAVE THE SAME BEHAVIOR AS THE DIRECT EXECUTION OF THIS >> SAME MACHINE > Bold claim. How does that make sense? > >> PATHOLOGICAL SELF REFERENCE DOES CHANGE SEMANTICS > As opposed to what? Of course a different program has different semantics. > >> This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true" >> The exact same word-for-word sentence IS TRUE IN THIS DIFFERING CONTEXT >> THAT DOES NOT HAVE PSR. > It's a different sentence. > It is the same word-for-word sentence with pathological self-reference removed. >>> In other words, the emulator is a canard, a distraction, a cul-de-sac, >>> and a complete waste of time. If it happens to work, great! Well done >>> that man. But it doesn't affect the HP logic one microscopically >>> minuscule millijot. >> The emulator proves the actual behavior specified by the INPUT > No, the direct execution does. > We really cannot simply ignore the pathological self-reference specified by DDD to HHH and not specified by DDD to HHH1. >> That people disagree with the semantics of the x86 language proves how >> deeply indoctrinated they are. > With what semantics? I will give it to you in C void DDD() { HHH(DDD); return; } The above code specifies that DDD correctly simulated by HHH specifies that DDD will continue to call HHH(DDD) in recursive simulation and WILL NOT CALL HHH1(DDD) IN RECURSIVE SIMULATION. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer