Re: ChatGPT refutes the key rebuttal of my work

On 10/16/2024 9:45 AM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 16 Oct 2024 09:11:22 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 10/16/2024 9:01 AM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 16 Oct 2024 08:31:43 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 10/16/2024 1:33 AM, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 15 Oct 2024 16:51:15 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 10/15/2024 4:24 PM, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 15 Oct 2024 15:01:36 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 10/15/2024 2:33 PM, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 15 Oct 2024 13:25:36 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 10/15/2024 10:17 AM, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 15 Oct 2024 08:11:30 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 10/15/2024 6:35 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/14/24 10:13 PM, olcott wrote:

 

It explains in great detail that another different DDD (same
machine code different process context) seems to terminate
only because the recursive emulation that it specifies has
been aborted at its second recursive call.

Yes! It really has different code, by way of the static Root
variable.
No wonder it behaves differently.

There are no static root variables. There never has been any
"not a pure function of its inputs" aspect to emulation.

Oh, did you take out the check if HHH is the root simulator?

There is some code that was obsolete several years ago.

I don't follow your repo. Can you point me to the relevant commit?
It doesn't seem to have happened this year.

https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm Halt7.c was updated last month.

Nope, still there: https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/
Halt7.c#L502

https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c#L502 shows: u32
H(ptr P, ptr I)  // 2024-09-15 was HH and edit on line 643 The
repository indicates that it was updated: "last month"

Line 502 (if(Root)) wasn't changed.

 

You err because you fail to understand how the same C/x86
function invoked in a different process context can have
different behavior.

Do explain how a pure function can change.

Non-terminating C functions do not ever return, thus cannot
possibly be pure functions.

By "pure" I mean having no side effects. You mean total vs.
partial.

You may be half right. Only the analyzer must be pure.
The input is free to get stuck in an infinite loop.

Sure. How can a function without side effects have different
behaviour?

DDD is free to be totally screwed up every which way.
It is only HHH that must be a pure function.

In which way is DDD screwed up that it is both free of side effects
and referentially intransparent?

In other words you don't have a clue that an input to a termination
analyzer can be non-terminating thus violating the (1) criteria of
pure functions shown below.

I am talking about the referential transparency, not whether the
function is total or partial.

 

(1) *the function return values are identical for identical arguments*
(no variation with local static variables, non-local variables,
mutable reference arguments or input streams, i.e., referential
transparency), and (2) the function has no side effects (no mutation
of local static variables, non-local variables, mutable reference
arguments or input/ output streams).

Yes, this has nothing to do with termination. Your function
Decide_Halting_HH(..., u32 Root) (line 473) is not pure though.

 

When-so-ever any input to a termination analyzer is non-terminating
for any reason then this input is not a pure function.

s/pure/total

 

Terminating C functions must reach their "return" statement.

Which DDD does.

 

THIS IS ALSO THE INDUSTRY STANDARD DEFINITION It is stipulated that
*correct_x86_emulation* means that a finite string of x86 instructions
is emulated according to the semantics of the x86 language beginning
with the first bytes of this string.

You are not simulating the given program, but a version that differs
in the abort check.
 

HHH is correctly emulating (not simulating) the x86 language
finite string of DDD including emulating the finite string
of itself emulating the finite string of DDD up until the point
where the emulated emulated DDD would call HHH(DDD) again.
This sequence conclusively proves
each DDD *correctly_emulated_by* any HHH that it calls never returns.
To everyone with sufficient software engineering competence.

When HHH is an x86 emulation based termination analyzer then each DDD
*correctly_emulated_by* any HHH that it calls never returns.

It is not a correct emulation if it has a different termination status.
 

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer