Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Every sufficiently competent C programmer knows --- Semantic
 Property of Finite String
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2025 19:50:19 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 44
Message-ID: <vr1tpd$1rpd0$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vqntaq$1jut5$1@dont-email.me> <vqp388$1tvqa$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqpdv9$202b2$2@dont-email.me> <vqperb$20c9k$2@dont-email.me>
 <E6mcnWv3nMa66036nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <vqs2n8$2knng$1@dont-email.me>
 <5429f6c8b8a8a79e06b4aeefe677cc54a2a636bf@i2pn2.org>
 <vqt9jp$2spcd$6@dont-email.me> <vqtag4$2t2hb$2@dont-email.me>
 <vqtgl0$2u7fo$1@dont-email.me>
 <924e22fc46d629b311b16a954dd0bed980a0a094@i2pn2.org>
 <vqvg7s$3s1qt$3@dont-email.me>
 <9e1b767d1ab11da5dc6f6fa164cae8d8deeada2b@i2pn2.org>
 <vr02sg$ad6n$1@dont-email.me>
 <ebe34b91a9a99302b79ea0ef8c5d395ebb0cc2f0@i2pn2.org>
 <vr1fb8$1ev1a$5@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2025 19:50:21 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="bf2f6eb9ae31e8c31bc90bb76483073a";
	logging-data="1959328"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19n+DO8de+FD6B6IZqFQkUf"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:bfSQNQmbLncXhk16JsZkIM8VHGI=
In-Reply-To: <vr1fb8$1ev1a$5@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: nl, en-GB
Bytes: 3747

Op 14.mrt.2025 om 15:43 schreef olcott:
> On 3/14/2025 5:54 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Thu, 13 Mar 2025 21:05:04 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 3/13/2025 6:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/13/25 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.
>>
>> Right?
>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>> DDD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own final
>>>>> state no matter what HHH does.
>>>>> DDD correctly emulated by HHH1 does reach its own final state.
>>>> Which shows that HHH doesn't correctly emulate its input, unless you
>>>> just lied and gave the two programs different inputs.
>>> Someone that is not a liar could explain exactly how DDD emulated by HHH
>>> according to the semantics of the C language must have the same behavior
>>> as DDD emulated by HHH1 according to the semantics of the C language.
> 
>> I mean, HHH and HHH1 are both simulators, the former just aborts.
>>
> 
> The semantics of the finite string input DDD to HHH specifies
> to continue to call HHH(DDD) in recursive simulation.
> 
> The semantics of the finite string input DDD to HHH1 specifies
> to simulate to DDD exactly once.

Factual incorrect, because HHH1 also simulates HHH simulating DDD, so it 
simulates DDD at least twice in recursive simulation. There is a finite 
recursion. HHH misses the fact that there is a finite recursion, because 
it aborts before it can see that.