People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language

Liste des GroupesRevenir à ca philosophy 
Sujet : People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theory sci.logic comp.ai.philosophy
Date : 29. Jun 2024, 18:09:19
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v5pbjf$55h$1@dont-email.me>
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with
the semantics of the x86 language. That is isomorphic to
trying to get away with disagreeing with arithmetic.
typedef void (*ptr)();
int H0(ptr P);
void Infinite_Loop()
{
   HERE: goto HERE;
}
void Infinite_Recursion()
{
   Infinite_Recursion();
}
void DDD()
{
   H0(DDD);
}
int main()
{
   H0(Infinite_Loop);
   H0(Infinite_Recursion);
   H0(DDD);
}
Every C programmer that knows what an x86 emulator is knows
that when H0 emulates the machine language of Infinite_Loop,
Infinite_Recursion, and DDD that it must abort these emulations
so that itself can terminate normally.
When this is construed as non-halting criteria then simulating
termination analyzer H0 is correct to reject these inputs as
non-halting by returning 0 to its caller.
Simulating termination analyzers must report on the behavior
that their finite string input specifies thus H0 must report
that DDD correctly emulated by H0 remains stuck in recursive
simulation.
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
     If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
     until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
     stop running unless aborted then
     H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
     specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
People are trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics
of the x86 language by disagreeing that
The call from DDD to HHH(DDD) when N steps of DDD are correctly
emulated by any pure function x86 emulator HHH cannot possibly
return.
_DDD()
[00002172] 55               push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec             mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000       push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff       call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404           add esp,+04
[00002182] 5d               pop ebp
[00002183] c3               ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
*A 100% complete and total rewrite of the prior paper*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381636432_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_P
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

Date Sujet#  Auteur
29 Jun 24 * People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language24olcott
29 Jun 24 +* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language21Richard Damon
29 Jun 24 i`* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language20olcott
29 Jun 24 i `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language19Richard Damon
29 Jun 24 i  `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language18olcott
29 Jun 24 i   `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language17Richard Damon
29 Jun 24 i    `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language16olcott
29 Jun 24 i     `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language15Richard Damon
29 Jun 24 i      `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language14olcott
29 Jun 24 i       `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language13Richard Damon
29 Jun 24 i        `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language12olcott
29 Jun 24 i         `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language11Richard Damon
29 Jun 24 i          `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language10olcott
29 Jun 24 i           `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language9Richard Damon
30 Jun 24 i            `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language8olcott
30 Jun 24 i             `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language7Richard Damon
30 Jun 24 i              `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language6olcott
30 Jun 24 i               `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language5Richard Damon
30 Jun 24 i                `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language4olcott
30 Jun 24 i                 `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language3Richard Damon
30 Jun 24 i                  `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language2olcott
30 Jun 24 i                   `- Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language1Richard Damon
1 Jul 24 +- Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language1Fred. Zwarts
1 Jul 24 `- Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language1olcott

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal