Re: Sequence of sequence, selection and iteration matters

On 7/9/24 11:10 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/7/2024 12:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/7/24 10:16 AM, olcott wrote:

_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]
>
Sufficient knowledge of the x86 language conclusively proves
that the call from DDD correctly emulated by HHH to HHH(DDD)
cannot possibly return for any pure function HHH.

No, you don;t understand the difference between the partial simulation of DDD done by HHH from the actual behavior of DDD.
>
Since HHH is a pure function, then if HHH returns to main, it will also return to DDD, so HHH can NOT POSSIBLE correctly determine that DDD will not halt if HHH eventually will return an answer. PERIOD.
>
YOU LOGIC IS JUST INCORRECT.
>
>

>
<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>

>
Remember, and you keep on ignoring this fact, to the point it has become a LIE, that Professor Sipser, like most people in the field define that a "Correct Simulation" is a simulation is a simulaition that exactly reproduces the behavior of the program represented by the input, and thus, is a simulator that never stops simulating until it reaches a final state.

 You are making this same mistake and thus ignoring sequence
of sequence, selection and iteration:
 *I have never explained this issue to Ben this clearly before*
Ben seems to believe that HHH must report that it need not
abort its emulation of DDD because AFTER HHH has already
aborted this emulation DDD does not need to be aborted.
 That *is* exactly analogous to you saying that you don't need
groceries when you do need groceries before you get more groceries.
 

Bad anaolgy, as I am willfull.
Since DDD and HHH are DETERMINISTIC programs, here is the ACTUAL efffect of "Sequence, Selection, and Iteration".
The behavior of DDD begins with DDD calling HHH, and then HHH begins an emulation of ANOTHER copy of DDD (which will be some steps behind this actual behavior), and that emulation will contine (again BEHIND the actual behavior of the DDD) until HHH decides to stop its emulation and thus stop seeing more of the behavior of DDD that has already been estabilished by its deterministic execution. Then the UNSEEN behavior has HHH return to DDD and DDD returning.
Note there is a difference between the Behavior of the DDD that HHH will be simulating, and the simulation done by HHH, in that the first is COMPLETE, but the second is only partial if HHH ever aborts is emulation.
We can not talk of HHH not aborting its emulation, (at least if the HHH we are talking about does) as it has no choice about what it does. Programs can not "lie", only the programmers can lie about what he claims the program does. A given pieece of computational code has a unique behavior (when you take into account it FULL input, inhcluding the "hidden bits")
Thus, HHH reports what it reports, and if it reports non-halting, it is just wrong, but the programmer that claimed it was a correct halt decider is the liar.