XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 6/29/2024 11:45 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 6/29/24 12:09 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with   
   >> the semantics of the x86 language. That is isomorphic to   
   >> trying to get away with disagreeing with arithmetic.   
   >   
   > Nope, we are not disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language, we   
   > are disagreeing with your misunderstanding of how it works.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> typedef void (*ptr)();   
   >> int H0(ptr P);   
   >>   
   >> void Infinite_Loop()   
   >> {   
   >>    HERE: goto HERE;   
   >> }   
   >>   
   >> void Infinite_Recursion()   
   >> {   
   >>    Infinite_Recursion();   
   >> }   
   >>   
   >> void DDD()   
   >> {   
   >>    H0(DDD);   
   >> }   
   >>   
   >> int main()   
   >> {   
   >>    H0(Infinite_Loop);   
   >>    H0(Infinite_Recursion);   
   >>    H0(DDD);   
   >> }   
   >>   
   >> Every C programmer that knows what an x86 emulator is knows   
   >> that when H0 emulates the machine language of Infinite_Loop,   
   >> Infinite_Recursion, and DDD that it must abort these emulations   
   >> so that itself can terminate normally.   
   >   
   > No the x86 language "knows" NOTHING about H0 being a x86 emulator. It is   
   > just a function that maybe happens to be a partial x86 emulator, but   
   > that is NOT a fundamental result of it being H0.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> When this is construed as non-halting criteria then simulating   
   >> termination analyzer H0 is correct to reject these inputs as   
   >> non-halting by returning 0 to its caller.   
   >   
   > It is construed as non-halting BECAUSE it has been shown that your H0   
   > *WILL* terminate its PARTIAL emulation of the code it is emulating and   
   > returning.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> Simulating termination analyzers must report on the behavior   
   >> that their finite string input specifies thus H0 must report   
   >> that DDD correctly emulated by H0 remains stuck in recursive   
   >> simulation.   
   >   
   > Right, so H0 is REQUIRED to return, and thus if the termination analyser   
   > knows that H0 is a termination analyzer it knows that the call to H0   
   > MUST return, and thus DDD must be a terminating program.   
   >   
   > An H0 that doesn't know this, and can't figure out that H0 will return,   
   > but just keeps emulating H0 emulating its input will just fail to meet   
   > its own requirement to return.   
   >   
   >>   
   >>    
   >>      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 the only definition Professor Sipser uses for "Correct   
   > Simulation" is a simulation that EXACTLY REPRODUCES the behavior of the   
   > directly executed program represented by the input. Your H doesn't do   
   > that, nor correctly predicts the behavior of such a simulation of the   
   > input (since that behavior is to halt) so it can never proper avail   
   > itself of the second paragraph, so does so erroneously getting the wrong   
   > answer.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> People are trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics   
   >> of the x86 language by disagreeing that   
   >>   
   >> The call from DDD to HHH(DDD) when N steps of DDD are correctly   
   >> emulated by any pure function x86 emulator HHH cannot possibly   
   >> return.   
   >   
   > Except that the "N Steps of DDD correctly emulated" is NOT the   
   > definition of the "behavior" of the input DDD.   
   >   
   > "inputs" Do not have "behavoir", that is a property of a program, so the   
   > input only "represents" that program, in this case the program DDD.   
   >   
      
   *According to the professor Sipser approved criteria YES IT IS*   
      
   The call from DDD to HHH(DDD) when N steps of DDD are correctly   
   emulated by any pure function x86 emulator HHH cannot possibly   
   return.   
      
   _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]   
      
   --   
   Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius   
   hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)