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

On 6/29/24 3:25 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/29/2024 2:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/29/24 2:47 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/29/2024 1:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/29/24 2:06 PM, olcott wrote:

 <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>

But that only applies if H determines a CORRECT SIMULATION per HIS definition does not halt
.
That means the DIRECT EXECUTION of the program represented by the input does not halt, since that is the DEFINITION of the results of a correct simuation.
That also requires that the simulation does not stop until it reaches a final state. You H neither does that nor correctly determines that (since it does halt) thus you can never use the second paragraph to be allowed to abort, even though you do anyway, which is why you get the wrong answer.

 

>
*N steps of correct simulation are specified*
H correctly simulates its input D until H
H correctly simulates its input D until H
H correctly simulates its input D until H
H correctly simulates its input D until H

>
Which does not determine the ACTUAL behavor
>

>
_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]
>
That you already know that it does prove that DDD correctly
emulated by HHH would never stop running unless aborted
or out-of-memory error
>
*proves that you are trying to get away with a bald-faced lie*
I really hope that you repent before it is too late.
>
>

>
Nope, just shows your stupidity, as the above code has NO defined behavior as it accesses code that is not defined by it.
>

 *Its behavior is completely defined by*
(a) The finite string x86 machine code that includes
     the recursive emulation call from DDD to HHH(DDD).

But by the semantics of the x86 langugage, the call to HHH does NOT do a "recursive simulation" since that is not a term in that language.
The Call to HHH just cause the

 (b) The semantics of the x86 language.
 (c) That HHH is an x86 emulator that correctly emulates
     N steps of DDD.

Which isn't an ACTUALY correct emulation, but only a PARTIAL correct emulation (since correct emulation implies EVERY instruction but a terminal one is followed by the next instruction).
The key fact is that PARTIAL emulation doesn't reveal the future of the behavior past the point of the emulation. But the "Behavior" of the program represtented by the input, does.
Remember, "Behavior" is an attribute of programs,  not "inputs", inputs only point to the behavior of the program they represent. Programs do not "stop" just because some emulation of them ceased.

 *I am not infallible so I may have left out a detail*

Like FACTS.

 *These facts are deduced from the above facts*
(1) 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.
 

No, the CALL DOES return (if HHH is a decider), that return is just not emulated by HHH, which being just a PARTIAL emulation doesn't reveal the behavior after it aborts its emulation.

(2) (1) means that DDD correctly simulated by HHH would
     never stop running unless aborted.

Nope, It means that either you have an HHH that never stops its emulation, and thus fail to be the decider you claim, or that it does and doesn't do

 I don't understand why you risk your salvation
by trying to get away with such a bald-faced lie.

But it isn't a lie. It is the truth.
You just don't seem to understand that knowing just part of what is correct isn't knowing ALL of what is correct.

 Those the believe salvation cannot be lost may
correct in the God sees their future behavior thus
never granting them salvation in the first place.
 

That is one theory.
Doesn't seem it really matters to you, since it is clear you were never came close to salvation, as you don't accept God's word as his word, but have decided you get to pick and choose from it.