XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic
From: polcott333@gmail.com
On 7/23/2025 6:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 7/23/25 12:11 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/22/2025 9:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 7/22/25 11:39 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 7/22/2025 6:29 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 7/21/25 11:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/21/2025 5:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/21/25 5:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/21/2025 3:58 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/21/2025 10:52 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/21/2025 9:40 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/21/2025 4:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-07-20 11:48:37 +0000, Mr Flibble said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2025 07:13:43 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ .... ]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your problem is you don't understand the meaning of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is an ad hominem attack, not argumentation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is also honest and truthful, which is not as common as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it should.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is also honest and truthful that people
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that deny verified facts are either liars
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or lack sufficient technical competence.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What you call "verified facts" are generally nothing of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> kind. They
>>>>>>>>>>>>> are merely things, often false, you would like to be true.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *One key example of a denied verified fact is when Joes said*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/18/2025 3:49 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> very obvious that HHH cannot simulate
>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDD past the call to HHH.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Joes is quite right, here, as has been said to you many times
>>>>>>>>>>> over by
>>>>>>>>>>> several people.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH(DDD) does emulate itself emulating DDD
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You will have a get out clause from the vagueness of your
>>>>>>>>>>> language, which
>>>>>>>>>>> could be construed to mean practically anything.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> typedef void (*ptr)();
>>>>>>>>>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>> HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>>> return;
>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>> HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not at all. HHH does emulate the x86 machine code
>>>>>>>>>> of DDD pointed to by P. That is does this according
>>>>>>>>>> to the semantics of the x86 language conclusively
>>>>>>>>>> proves that this emulation is correct.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's nauseatingly overstretching things into another lie.
>>>>>>>>> Whatever HHH
>>>>>>>>> might do is far short of sufficient "conclusively to prove"
>>>>>>>>> that the
>>>>>>>>> emulation is correct. To prove that is likely impossible in
>>>>>>>>> principle,
>>>>>>>>> that's even assuming you could define "correct" coherently.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [00002192] 55 push ebp
>>>>>>>> [00002193] 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>> [00002195] 6892210000 push 00002192
>>>>>>>> [0000219a] e833f4ffff call 000015d2 // call HHH
>>>>>>>> [0000219f] 83c404 add esp,+04
>>>>>>>> [000021a2] 5d pop ebp
>>>>>>>> [000021a3] c3 ret
>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [000021a3]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which isn't a program, you need to include the code for HHH.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Yet again your attention deficit disorder*
>>>>>> I have told you countless times that all of
>>>>>> the machine code for every function is in
>>>>>> the same global memory space of halt7.obj.
>>>>>
>>>>> Doesn't matter what "is in the memory space", what matters is what
>>>>> is considedred part of the program, and thus part of the input.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Neither HHH nor DDD would ever stop running unless
>>>> HHH aborts its emulation of DDD.
>>>
>>> But your HHH DOES stop running.
>>>
>>
>> HHH would not stop running unless HHH aborts its
>> simulation this proves that the input specifies
>> non-halting behavior.
>
> So? since it does, it does, and thus DDD does.
>
*This is a truism*
Every input that must have its simulation aborted to
prevent its infinite execution is a non-terminating
input.
Alternatively any input D simulated by termination
analyzer H that cannot possibly reach its own final
halt state no matter what H does specifies non-halting
behavior.
--
Copyright 2025 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)
|
