XPost: comp.theory, comp.lang.c++
From: polcott333@gmail.com
On 11/24/2025 4:22 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2025-11-24, olcott wrote:
>> On 11/24/2025 1:27 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>> On 2025-11-24, Mike Terry
wrote:
>>>> On 24/11/2025 16:32, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-11-24, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/22/2025 11:24 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>>> That's just the thing! If this were correctly implemented then in fact
>>>>>>> DD /wold be/ calling HHH1, using the name HHH.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are trying to get away with this lie
>>>>>> about the semantics of C?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> HHH(DD);
>>>>>> HHH1(DD);
>>>>>> return 0;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _main()
>>>>>> [000022c4] 55 push ebp
>>>>>> [000022c5] 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>>> [000022c7] 6834220000 push 00002234 ; push DD
>>>>>> [000022cc] e833f3ffff call 00001604 ; call HHH
>>>>>> [000022d1] 83c404 add esp,+04
>>>>>> [000022d4] 6834220000 push 00002234 ; push DD
>>>>>> [000022d9] e856f2ffff call 00001534 ; call HHH1
>>>>>> [000022de] 83c404 add esp,+04
>>>>>> [000022e1] 33c0 xor eax,eax
>>>>>> [000022e3] 5d pop ebp
>>>>>> [000022e4] c3 ret
>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0033) [000022e4]
>>>>>
>>>>> That's right; even if HHH and HHH1 are separately realized and given
>>>>> different adddresses, not recognized as identical by the compiler and
>>>>> not folded into one copy, in a correct implementation of your software,
>>>>> HHH(DD) and HHH1(DD) would behave as indistinguishable, mutually
>>>>> interchangeable operations.
>>>>
>>>> Right - in terms of their results when called.
>>>>
>>>> But TM-descriptions can legitimately contain multiple distinct copies of
"the same algorithm", and
>>>> there's no reason that an emulator emulating the TM is required to
identify such copies as being
>>>> copies - an emulator just has to mimic what the TM would do and the TM
doesn't know that it has
>>>> multiple copies of the same algorithm with different state labels...
Your point that the /results/
>>>> of those copied algorithms must be the same is spot on though.
>>>
>>> Olcott's simulator contains abort criteria which rely on comparing
>>> addresses pulled from the trace buffer.
>>>
>>> That logic concludes that when two addresses are not equal, they
>>> represent two different functions. I.e. if CALL X and CALL Y occur in
>>> the trace buffer, without any intervening conditionals in between but X
>>> != Y, then it is not concluded that it is a loop.
>>>
>>
>> DD is calling HHH(DD) in recursive simulation
>> and DD is not calling HHH1(DD) in recursive
>> simulation.
>
> Yes, clearly; yet HHH1 and HHH are the same. So how can that be?
>
>> I do not believe that you do not
>> understand this.
>
> Indeed, I do, of course. I'm just saying that it's an incorrect
> state of affairs.
>
That wold be a lie.
It is like you are trying to get away with saying
that identical twins are one and the same person.
The identity of indiscernibles is an ontological principle
that states that there cannot be separate objects or entities
that have all their properties in common.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_of_indiscernibles
Even if identical twins had every single atom that
was identical they these atoms differ in their x,y,z
coordinates relative to the center of the Earth.
> The fact that you keep reiterating about how things /are/ in your
> code, when I'm making effort to clarify that I'm talking about how
> they are /supposed/ to be, shows me you are not comprehending
> what you are reading.
>
>> Anyone that even knows what
>> ordinary recursion is should get this
>
> The point is that there isn't /supposed/ to be a difference
> between "DD is calls HHH" and "DD is calling HHH1".
>
You keep thinking in mathematical terms that abstract
away (thus simply ignore) key differences.
> We (you, me, anyone else who runs the code) do see a difference.
> There is no denying that.
>
>> HHH and HHH1 both see if the same function is
>> called from the same machine address with the
>> same arguments. This is true for HHH(DD) and
>> not true for HHH1(DD).
>
> You believe that HHH1 is a different function from HHH because
> DDD calls HHH and does not call HHH1.
>
You really can't be stupid enough to not see the
different execution trace.
> That, I'm saying, is not a valid concept.
>
> The actual reason is that you are failing to identify HHH
> and HHH1 as equivalent by using address comparisons.
>
That essentially prove that identical twins are not
one and the same person.
the comp.lang.c and comp.lang.c++ groups will
continue to be presented with your non-sense
until they call you out on it.
> The same function can be known under multiple addresses, just
> like under different names. That's an implementation detail you
> have to abstract away if you want to correctly model pure, recursive
> functions which behave like their mathematical counterparts in key ways.
>
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott
My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning" computable.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
