Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Computable Functions --- OUTPUTS MUST CORRESPOND TO INPUTS Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2025 18:40:02 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <51970b3aaedf7325e812613db4ab5902ed9d8215@i2pn2.org> References: <852f89c9196e0261b8156050fea4572fe886933f@i2pn2.org> <63af93cb608258cc3e12b9bab3a2efa0b7ee7eee@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2025 22:40:37 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="1603571"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 In-Reply-To: Bytes: 6958 Lines: 117 On 4/23/25 11:40 AM, olcott wrote: > On 4/23/2025 4:05 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >> Op 22.apr.2025 om 21:51 schreef olcott: >>> On 4/22/2025 2:33 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>> Op 22.apr.2025 om 20:51 schreef olcott: >>>>> On 4/22/2025 1:07 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>> Op 22.apr.2025 om 18:28 schreef olcott: >>>>>>> On 4/22/2025 7:57 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>> Am Tue, 15 Apr 2025 15:44:06 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2025 2:03 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2025 2:50 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2025 11:05 AM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2025 11:29 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> *corresponding output to the input* >>>>>>>>>>>>> Not freaking allowed to look at any damn thing else besides >>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>> freaking input. Must compute whatever mapping ACTUALLY >>>>>>>>>>>>> EXISTS FROM >>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS INPUT. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> So the algorithm HHH that you've implemented computes *some* >>>>>>>>>>>> computable function, but it does not compute the halting >>>>>>>>>>>> function as >>>>>>>>>>>> it is not computable. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *corresponding output to the input* >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That doesn't refute anything I said. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You continue to stupidly insist that int sum(int x, int y) >>>>>>>>> {return x + >>>>>>>>> y; } >>>>>>>>> returns 7 for sum(3,2) because you incorrectly understand how >>>>>>>>> these >>>>>>>>> things fundamentally work. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It is stupidly wrong to expect HHH(DD) report on the direct >>>>>>>>> execution of >>>>>>>>> DD when you are not telling it one damn thing about this direct >>>>>>>>> execution. >>>>>>>> What else is it missing that the processor uses to execute it? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> int DD() >>>>>>> { >>>>>>>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD); >>>>>>>    if (Halt_Status) >>>>>>>      HERE: goto HERE; >>>>>>>    return Halt_Status; >>>>>>> } >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _DD() >>>>>>> [00002133] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping >>>>>>> [00002134] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping >>>>>>> [00002136] 51         push ecx      ; make space for local >>>>>>> [00002137] 6833210000 push 00002133 ; push DD >>>>>>> [0000213c] e882f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DD) >>>>>>> [00002141] 83c404     add esp,+04 >>>>>>> [00002144] 8945fc     mov [ebp-04],eax >>>>>>> [00002147] 837dfc00   cmp dword [ebp-04],+00 >>>>>>> [0000214b] 7402       jz 0000214f >>>>>>> [0000214d] ebfe       jmp 0000214d >>>>>>> [0000214f] 8b45fc     mov eax,[ebp-04] >>>>>>> [00002152] 8be5       mov esp,ebp >>>>>>> [00002154] 5d         pop ebp >>>>>>> [00002155] c3         ret >>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0035) [00002155] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> libx86emu a correct x86 processor and does emulate >>>>>>> its inputs correctly. >>>>>> >>>>>> The key thing here is that Olcott consistently does not understand >>>>>> that HHH is given a finite string input that according to the >>>>>> semantics of the x86 language specifies a halting program, >>>>> >>>>> That is stupidly incorrect. The only question that HHH >>>>> must answer is the behavior that its input specifies. >>>>> >>>> Yes and the input, a finite string specifies a halting program >>>> according to the unique semantics of the x86 language, as proven by >>>> direct execution and world-class simulators. HHH's failure to reach >>>> the end of the simulation does not show otherwise. >>> >>> I have proven that the directly executed DD and DD >>> emulated by HHH according to the semantics of the >>> x86 language have a different set of state changes >>> many hundreds of times for several years. >> >> We have never seen a proof, only your unbased claims. You never showed >> the first state change that is different for direct execution and the >> simulation. You only showed a HHH that fails to reach the end of a >> halting program. > > _DD() > [00002133] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping > [00002134] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping > [00002136] 51         push ecx      ; make space for local > [00002137] 6833210000 push 00002133 ; push DD > [0000213c] e882f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DD) > [00002141] 83c404     add esp,+04 > [00002144] 8945fc     mov [ebp-04],eax > [00002147] 837dfc00   cmp dword [ebp-04],+00 > [0000214b] 7402       jz 0000214f > [0000214d] ebfe       jmp 0000214d > [0000214f] 8b45fc     mov eax,[ebp-04] > [00002152] 8be5       mov esp,ebp > [00002154] 5d         pop ebp > [00002155] c3         ret > Size in bytes:(0035) [00002155] > > Even the above is complete proof to everyone that > knows the x86 language. > Sure, it proves you don't know what you are talking about as the code is incomplete as it doesn't include the code at 000015c3, so has no actually defined behavior.