XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 6/29/2024 1:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 6/29/24 2:06 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 6/29/2024 12:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> On 6/29/24 1:17 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>> 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.   
   >>>>>> >>>>> 10/13/2022>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> 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*   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> Nope. Where dp you see that in what he says? Remember, you need to   
   >>> interpret the words by what he means them to say.   
   >>>   
   >>> His ONLY definition of "Correct Simulation" is a simulation that   
   >>> exactly recreates the behavior of the program described by the input,   
   >>> and that in one that does not stop its simulation. So, NOT your "N Step"   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> *N steps of correct simulation are specified*   
   >> H correctly simulates its input D until H   
   >> H correctly simulates its input D until H   
   >> H correctly simulates its input D until H   
   >> H correctly simulates its input D until H   
   >   
   > Which does not determine the ACTUAL behavor   
   >   
      
   _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]   
      
   That you already know that it does prove that DDD correctly   
   emulated by HHH would never stop running unless aborted   
   or out-of-memory error   
      
   *proves that you are trying to get away with a bald-faced lie*   
   I really hope that you repent before it is too late.   
      
      
   --   
   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)