Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.

Liste des GroupesRevenir à theory 
Sujet : Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.
De : mikko.levanto (at) *nospam* iki.fi (Mikko)
Groupes : comp.theory
Date : 17. Jul 2024, 09:03:28
Autres entêtes
Organisation : -
Message-ID : <v77tsg$1oeb3$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1
User-Agent : Unison/2.2
On 2024-07-16 14:34:19 +0000, olcott said:

On 7/16/2024 2:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-07-15 13:21:35 +0000, olcott said:
 
On 7/15/2024 2:52 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-07-14 14:44:27 +0000, olcott said:
 
On 7/14/2024 3:48 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-07-13 12:19:36 +0000, olcott said:
 
On 7/13/2024 2:55 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-07-12 13:28:15 +0000, olcott said:
 
On 7/12/2024 3:27 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-07-11 14:02:52 +0000, olcott said:
 
On 7/11/2024 1:22 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-07-10 15:03:46 +0000, olcott said:
 
typedef void (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);
 void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
}
 int main()
{
   HHH(DDD);
}
 We stipulate that the only measure of a correct emulation
is the semantics of the x86 programming language. By this
measure when 1 to ∞ steps of DDD are correctly emulated by
each pure function x86 emulator HHH (of the infinite set
of every HHH that can possibly exist) then DDD cannot
possibly reach past its own machine address of 0000216b
and halt.
 For every instruction that the C compiler generates the x86 language
specifies an unambiguous meaning, leaving no room for "can".
 
 then DDD cannot possibly reach past its own machine
address of 0000216b and halt.
 As I already said, there is not room for "can". That means there is
no room for "cannot", either. The x86 semantics of the unshown code
determines unambigously what happens.
 
 Of an infinite set behavior X exists for at least one element
or behavior X does not exist for at least one element.
Of the infinite set of HHH/DDD pairs zero DDD elements halt.
 That is so far from the Common Language that I can't parse.
 
 *This proves that every rebuttal is wrong somewhere*
No DDD instance of each HHH/DDD pair of the infinite set of
every HHH/DDD pair ever reaches past its own machine address of
0000216b and halts thus proving that every HHH is correct to
reject its input DDD as non-halting.
 Here you attempt to use the same name for a constant programs and univesally
quantifed variable with a poorly specified range. That is a form of a well
known mistake called the "fallacy of equivocation".
 I incorporated your suggestion in my paper.
DDD is a fixed constant finite string that calls its
HHH at the same fixed constant machine address.
 That does not make sense. Which HHH does that DDD call? Which HHH
is at that fixed machine address?
 
 HHH₁ to HHH∞ forming an infinite set of HHH/DDD pairs
 HHH₁/DDD₁ to HHH∞/DDD∞ is another way to specify this
infinite set of HHH/DDD pairs.
 You should not say "another way" before you have one way. What you
presented earlier is not a way as it did not make sense.
 DDD itself is a single immutable finite string have the exactly
same instructions at the exact same machine addresses.
That string does not specify what the call to an address outside of the
string does and whether it returns. The semantics of x86 as specified
by Intel and implemented in various x86 processors is silent about that.
A decider is required to decide about the given input and nothing else.
If HHH uses any information not contained in its input string it violates
that requirement.
--
Mikko

Date Sujet#  Auteur
10 Jul 24 * DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.119olcott
10 Jul 24 +- Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.1olcott
10 Jul 24 +* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.93Fred. Zwarts
10 Jul 24 i+* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.37olcott
10 Jul 24 ii+- Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.1Fred. Zwarts
11 Jul 24 ii+- Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.1Richard Damon
11 Jul 24 ii`* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.34Mikko
11 Jul 24 ii `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.33olcott
11 Jul 24 ii  +* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.10joes
11 Jul 24 ii  i`* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.9olcott
11 Jul 24 ii  i +* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.7joes
11 Jul 24 ii  i i`* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.6olcott
12 Jul 24 ii  i i +- Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.1Richard Damon
12 Jul 24 ii  i i `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.4joes
12 Jul 24 ii  i i  `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.3olcott
12 Jul 24 ii  i i   `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.2joes
12 Jul 24 ii  i i    `- Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.1olcott
12 Jul 24 ii  i `- Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.1Richard Damon
12 Jul 24 ii  +- Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.1Richard Damon
12 Jul 24 ii  +* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.20Mikko
12 Jul 24 ii  i`* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.19olcott
12 Jul 24 ii  i +- Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.1Fred. Zwarts
13 Jul 24 ii  i +* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.14Mikko
13 Jul 24 ii  i i`* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.13olcott
13 Jul 24 ii  i i +- Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.1Fred. Zwarts
13 Jul 24 ii  i i +- Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is INcorrectly rejected as non-halting.1Richard Damon
14 Jul 24 ii  i i `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.10Mikko
14 Jul 24 ii  i i  `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.9olcott
14 Jul 24 ii  i i   +- Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is INcorrectly rejected as non-halting.1Richard Damon
15 Jul 24 ii  i i   +- Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.1joes
15 Jul 24 ii  i i   `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.6Mikko
15 Jul 24 ii  i i    `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.5olcott
16 Jul 24 ii  i i     `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.4Mikko
16 Jul 24 ii  i i      `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.3olcott
17 Jul 24 ii  i i       +- Re: DDD incorrectly emulated by HHH is INcorrectly rejected as non-halting.1Richard Damon
17 Jul 24 ii  i i       `- Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.1Mikko
14 Jul 24 ii  i `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.3joes
14 Jul 24 ii  i  `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.2olcott
14 Jul 24 ii  i   `- Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.1Richard Damon
12 Jul 24 ii  `- Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.1Mikko
10 Jul 24 i`* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.55Alan Mackenzie
10 Jul 24 i +* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.50Fred. Zwarts
10 Jul 24 i i`* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.49Alan Mackenzie
10 Jul 24 i i +* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.44olcott
11 Jul 24 i i i+* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.40Mikko
11 Jul 24 i i ii`* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.39olcott
12 Jul 24 i i ii +- Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.1Richard Damon
12 Jul 24 i i ii `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.37Mikko
12 Jul 24 i i ii  `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.36olcott
12 Jul 24 i i ii   `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.35Fred. Zwarts
13 Jul 24 i i ii    `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.34Mikko
13 Jul 24 i i ii     `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.33olcott
13 Jul 24 i i ii      +- Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.1Fred. Zwarts
13 Jul 24 i i ii      +- Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is INcorrectly rejected as non-halting.1Richard Damon
14 Jul 24 i i ii      `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.30Mikko
14 Jul 24 i i ii       `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.29olcott
14 Jul 24 i i ii        +- Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is INcorrectly rejected as non-halting.1Richard Damon
15 Jul 24 i i ii        `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.27Mikko
15 Jul 24 i i ii         `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting. --- You are not paying attention26olcott
16 Jul 24 i i ii          +- Re: DDD incorrectly emulated by HHH is incorrectly rejected as non-halting. --- You are not paying attention1Richard Damon
16 Jul 24 i i ii          `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting. --- You are not paying attention24Mikko
16 Jul 24 i i ii           `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting. --- You are not paying attention23olcott
17 Jul 24 i i ii            +- Re: DDD INcorrectly emulated by HHH is INcorrectly rejected as non-halting. --- You are not paying attention1Richard Damon
17 Jul 24 i i ii            `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting. --- You are not paying attention21Mikko
17 Jul 24 i i ii             `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting. --- You are not paying attention20olcott
17 Jul 24 i i ii              +- Re: DDD emulated by HHH is incorrectly rejected as non-halting.1joes
18 Jul 24 i i ii              `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting. --- You are not paying attention18Mikko
18 Jul 24 i i ii               `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting. --- You are not paying attention17olcott
19 Jul 24 i i ii                `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting. --- You are not paying attention16Mikko
19 Jul 24 i i ii                 `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting. --- You are not paying attention15olcott
19 Jul 24 i i ii                  +- Re: DDD incorrectly emulated by HHH is incorrectly rejected as non-halting. --- You are not paying attention1Richard Damon
20 Jul 24 i i ii                  `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting. --- You are not paying attention13Mikko
20 Jul 24 i i ii                   `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting. --- You are not paying attention12olcott
21 Jul 24 i i ii                    `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting. --- You are not paying attention11Mikko
21 Jul 24 i i ii                     `* Tarski / Gödel and redefining the Foundation of Logic10olcott
21 Jul 24 i i ii                      +- Re: Tarski / Gödel and redefining the Foundation of Logic1Richard Damon
22 Jul 24 i i ii                      `* Re: Tarski / Gödel and redefining the Foundation of Logic8Mikko
22 Jul 24 i i ii                       `* Re: Tarski / Gödel and redefining the Foundation of Logic7olcott
23 Jul 24 i i ii                        +- Re: Tarski / Gödel and redefining the Foundation of Logic1Richard Damon
23 Jul 24 i i ii                        `* Re: Tarski / Gödel and redefining the Foundation of Logic5Mikko
23 Jul 24 i i ii                         `* Re: Tarski / Gödel and redefining the Foundation of Logic4olcott
24 Jul 24 i i ii                          +- Re: Tarski / Gödel and redefining the Foundation of Logic1Richard Damon
25 Jul 24 i i ii                          `* Re: Tarski / Gödel and redefining the Foundation of Logic2Mikko
25 Jul 24 i i ii                           `- Re: Tarski / Gödel and redefining the Foundation of Logic1olcott
11 Jul 24 i i i`* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.3Fred. Zwarts
11 Jul 24 i i i `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting --- incorrect either way2olcott
12 Jul 24 i i i  `- Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting --- incorrect either way1Richard Damon
10 Jul 24 i i `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.4olcott
11 Jul 24 i i  `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.3Fred. Zwarts
11 Jul 24 i i   `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.2olcott
12 Jul 24 i i    `- Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.1Richard Damon
10 Jul 24 i +* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.2olcott
11 Jul 24 i i`- Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.1Fred. Zwarts
10 Jul 24 i `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.2olcott
11 Jul 24 i  `- Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.1Fred. Zwarts
11 Jul 24 +- Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.1Richard Damon
11 Jul 24 `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.23Mikko
11 Jul 24  `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.22olcott
12 Jul 24   +- Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.1Richard Damon
12 Jul 24   `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.20Mikko
12 Jul 24    `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.19olcott

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal