Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers disagree with basic facts

Liste des GroupesRevenir à c theory 
Sujet : Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers disagree with basic facts
De : richard (at) *nospam* damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Groupes : comp.theory
Date : 16. Aug 2024, 22:37:30
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <40c46fab1b847eb2f82a5df5acf5e4668055eebb@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 8/16/24 5:08 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 3:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 4:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>
I break my points down to the basic facts of the semantics
of the x86 language and the basic facts of the semantics
of the C programming.
>
I can't ever get to the point of the computer science
because reviewers disagree with these basic facts.
>
No, the problem is that your "facts" just disagree with the computere science you claim to be doing.
>
 We never get anywhere near the computer science because
people disagree with 100% concrete fully specified semantics.
If they disagree with arithmetic we can never get to algebra.
If you aren't talking about computer science, then you are using a lot of words FROM computer science, which bring in their implications.

 
>
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
}
>
_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]
>
Which is NOT a program
 I am talking above the behavior of the C function it is
dishonest to change the subject as any basis of rebuttal.
But the "C Function" doesn't HAVE "Behavior", because it isn't a complete thing to have behavior.
That is like asking about the color of Truth or the Weight of a Lie.
Behavior is of full entities, in this case PROGRAMS (or subprograms) which include all of the code they use.
So, the dishonest one is YOU to be trying to talk about something invalid, and then we can look back as see this is essentially the same form of input that you have claimed for years is isomorphic to the Linz Proof of the Halting Problem.
THat is shown to be just a lie.

 
and can not be the complete input to HHH, in fact, HHH takes the whole of memory being uses as its "finite string" input, or your problem is just falsely stated.
>
 The question is can DDD emulated by HHH according to the
semantics of the x86 language even stop running without
being aborted?
Except that isn't a valid question, as the x86 language defines that the call instruction needs to be followed to code you aren't giving.
Part of your problem is you don't understand that you are trying to define the behavior of the function DDD, but then trying to define it in terms of one abstract behavior of HHH, but then use a DIFFERENT abstract behavior of HHH to decide it. The problem is, that by the fundamental rules, the way you have built you system, the two must be the same, so your logic falls apart in the contradiciton.
HHH needs to decide on the behavior of DDD when it call the HHH that is assumed to be there.

 Ben is the only one that did not attempt some kind of
dishonesty on this question.
 
>
<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
>
Right, and to statisfy this, since the only simulation that is "Correct" for the determining of the behavior of a program is a COMPLETE behaivior
 UNTIL MEANS LIMITED.
IT DOES NOT MEAN YOUR MISCONCEPTION OF "COMPLETE"
But "Its simulated D" refers to the FULL BEHAIVOR of the PROGRAM D.
That can either be determined by just running D, or COMPLETELY simulating D, either of which will show that H was just wrong.

 YOU DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND THAT AN INFINITE
EXECUTION CANNOT BE COMPLETE. YOU AND OTHERS
ALWAYS USE THE TERM "COMPLETE" INCORRECTLY
But there IS a definitioin of a complete emulation of a non-halting program, and that is a emulation that continues forever. That *IS* complete.

 THIS IS NO ORDINARY MISTAKE IT IS A STUPID MISTAKE.
 
No, it is just showing your ignorance and the lack of understanding of things infinite.
The infinite set of the Natural Numbers 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, ... all the way for the full Aleph_0 numbers, is a COMPLETE set.
A simulation that will run for an aleph_0 number of steps, IS COMPLETE.
A truth established by an infinite sequence of truth preserving opetations IS TRUE.
Your mind is just too small.

Date Sujet#  Auteur
14 Aug 24 * Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point163olcott
14 Aug 24 +* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point141Richard Damon
14 Aug 24 i`* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point140olcott
14 Aug 24 i +* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point45Richard Damon
14 Aug 24 i i`* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point44olcott
14 Aug 24 i i `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point43Richard Damon
14 Aug 24 i i  +* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point32olcott
14 Aug 24 i i  i`* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point31Richard Damon
14 Aug 24 i i  i `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point --- in our head30olcott
15 Aug 24 i i  i  +- Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point --- in our head1Richard Damon
15 Aug 24 i i  i  `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point --- in our head28Richard Damon
15 Aug 24 i i  i   `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point --- in our head27olcott
15 Aug 24 i i  i    +* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point --- in our head20Richard Damon
15 Aug 24 i i  i    i`* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point --- in our head19olcott
15 Aug 24 i i  i    i `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point --- in our head18Richard Damon
15 Aug 24 i i  i    i  `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point --- in our head17olcott
15 Aug 24 i i  i    i   `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point --- in our head16Richard Damon
15 Aug 24 i i  i    i    +* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point --- in our head11olcott
15 Aug 24 i i  i    i    i`* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point --- in our head10Richard Damon
15 Aug 24 i i  i    i    i `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point --- in our head9olcott
15 Aug 24 i i  i    i    i  +- Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point --- in our head1Fred. Zwarts
16 Aug 24 i i  i    i    i  `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point --- in our head7Richard Damon
16 Aug 24 i i  i    i    i   `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point --- in our head6olcott
16 Aug 24 i i  i    i    i    +- Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point --- in our head1Richard Damon
16 Aug 24 i i  i    i    i    `* Re: point by point --- in our head4joes
16 Aug 24 i i  i    i    i     `* Re: point by point --- in our head3olcott
16 Aug 24 i i  i    i    i      +- Re: point by point --- in our head1joes
16 Aug 24 i i  i    i    i      `- Re: point by point --- in our head1Richard Damon
15 Aug 24 i i  i    i    `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point --- in our head4olcott
15 Aug 24 i i  i    i     `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point --- in our head3Richard Damon
15 Aug 24 i i  i    i      `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point --- in our head2olcott
16 Aug 24 i i  i    i       `- Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point --- in our head1Richard Damon
15 Aug 24 i i  i    `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point --- in our head6Mikko
15 Aug 24 i i  i     `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point --- in our head5olcott
16 Aug 24 i i  i      +* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point --- in our head3Richard Damon
16 Aug 24 i i  i      i`* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point --- in our head2olcott
16 Aug 24 i i  i      i `- Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point --- in our head1Richard Damon
16 Aug 24 i i  i      `- Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point --- in our head1Mikko
15 Aug 24 i i  `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point10Mikko
15 Aug 24 i i   `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point9olcott
16 Aug 24 i i    `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point8Richard Damon
16 Aug 24 i i     `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point7olcott
16 Aug 24 i i      `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point6Richard Damon
16 Aug 24 i i       `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point5olcott
16 Aug 24 i i        +* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point2joes
16 Aug 24 i i        i`- Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point1olcott
16 Aug 24 i i        +- Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point1Mikko
16 Aug 24 i i        `- Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point1Richard Damon
14 Aug 24 i `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point94joes
14 Aug 24 i  +* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point3olcott
14 Aug 24 i  i+- Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point1joes
14 Aug 24 i  i`- Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point1Fred. Zwarts
14 Aug 24 i  `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point90Mike Terry
14 Aug 24 i   +- Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point1olcott
15 Aug 24 i   `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point88joes
15 Aug 24 i    +* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes85olcott
15 Aug 24 i    i+* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes74Fred. Zwarts
15 Aug 24 i    ii`* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes73olcott
15 Aug 24 i    ii +- Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes1Fred. Zwarts
15 Aug 24 i    ii `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes71Mike Terry
15 Aug 24 i    ii  +* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes2olcott
16 Aug 24 i    ii  i`- Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes1Fred. Zwarts
15 Aug 24 i    ii  `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes and thus Fred too68olcott
16 Aug 24 i    ii   +* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes and thus Fred too2Mike Terry
16 Aug 24 i    ii   i`- Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes and thus Fred too1olcott
16 Aug 24 i    ii   `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes and thus Fred too65Fred. Zwarts
16 Aug 24 i    ii    +* Mike's correction of Joes correct Fred too15olcott
16 Aug 24 i    ii    i+* Re: Mike's correction of Joes correct Fred too13Mike Terry
16 Aug 24 i    ii    ii`* Re: Mike's correction of Joes correct Fred too12olcott
16 Aug 24 i    ii    ii +- Re: Mike's correction of Joes correct Fred too1joes
16 Aug 24 i    ii    ii +- Re: Mike's correction of Joes correct Fred too1Richard Damon
16 Aug 24 i    ii    ii +- Re: Mike's correction of Joes correct Fred too1Fred. Zwarts
17 Aug 24 i    ii    ii `* Re: Mike's correction of Joes correct Fred too8Mike Terry
17 Aug 24 i    ii    ii  +* Re: Mike's correction of Joes correct Fred too4Mike Terry
17 Aug 24 i    ii    ii  i`* Re: Mike's correction of Joes correct Fred too3olcott
17 Aug 24 i    ii    ii  i +- Re: Mike's correction of Joes correct Fred too1joes
17 Aug 24 i    ii    ii  i `- Re: Mike's correction of Joes correct Fred too1Richard Damon
17 Aug 24 i    ii    ii  `* Re: Mike's correction of Joes correct Fred too3olcott
17 Aug 24 i    ii    ii   `* Re: Mike's correction of Joes correct Fred too2Fred. Zwarts
17 Aug 24 i    ii    ii    `- Re: Mike's correction of Joes correct Fred too1olcott
16 Aug 24 i    ii    i`- Re: Mike's correction of Joes correct Fred too1Fred. Zwarts
16 Aug 24 i    ii    `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes and thus Fred too49Mike Terry
16 Aug 24 i    ii     +* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers disagree with basic facts16olcott
16 Aug 24 i    ii     i+* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers disagree with basic facts14Richard Damon
16 Aug 24 i    ii     ii`* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers disagree with basic facts13olcott
16 Aug 24 i    ii     ii +* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers disagree with basic facts8Richard Damon
16 Aug 24 i    ii     ii i`* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers disagree with basic facts7olcott
17 Aug 24 i    ii     ii i `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers disagree with basic facts6Richard Damon
17 Aug 24 i    ii     ii i  `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers disagree with basic facts5olcott
17 Aug 24 i    ii     ii i   `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers disagree with basic facts4Richard Damon
17 Aug 24 i    ii     ii i    `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers disagree with basic facts3olcott
17 Aug 24 i    ii     ii i     `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers disagree with basic facts2Richard Damon
17 Aug 24 i    ii     ii i      `- Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers disagree with basic facts1olcott
17 Aug 24 i    ii     ii +- Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers disagree with basic facts1Mikko
17 Aug 24 i    ii     ii `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers disagree with basic facts3joes
18 Aug 24 i    ii     ii  `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers disagree with basic facts2olcott
18 Aug 24 i    ii     ii   `- Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers disagree with basic facts1Richard Damon
17 Aug 24 i    ii     i`- Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers disagree with basic facts1Fred. Zwarts
16 Aug 24 i    ii     `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes and thus Fred too32Jeff Barnett
16 Aug 24 i    ii      +* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes and thus Fred too4olcott
17 Aug 24 i    ii      i`* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes and thus Fred too3Mike Terry
17 Aug 24 i    ii      `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes and thus Fred too27Mike Terry
16 Aug 24 i    i`* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes10Richard Damon
15 Aug 24 i    `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point2Mike Terry
14 Aug 24 +* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point17Mikko
14 Aug 24 `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point4Fred. Zwarts

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal