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

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.