XPost: comp.theory, comp.lang.c++
From: chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com
On 11/24/2025 3:19 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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.
Are you an idiot, a moron, or both? Your twin is an idiotic moron
instead of just a moron?
>
> 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.
>>
>
>
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
