Re: Every sufficiently competent C programmer knows --- Semantic Property of Finite String

On 3/12/25 10:41 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/12/2025 7:56 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/12/2025 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:>>

>
NOT WHEN IT IS STIPULATED THAT THE BEHAVIOR BEING
MEASURED IS

>
>
The direct execution of DDD

 is proven to be different than the behavior of DDD
emulated by HHH according to the semantics of the
x86 language.

Nope, you have never "proven" that, only claimed it with unsound arguements.
If your claim was true, you could show the first instruction correctly directly executed and correctly emulated by HHH by the definitions of the x86 language where the paths differed.
Your failure is an admission that you know this to be a lie. Your attempts to explaim it away show that you don't know what you are talking about, and know you are just lying.

 HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF RICES THEOREM ???
 In computability theory, Rice's theorem states that all
non-trivial semantic properties of programs [that
can be encoded as finite strings] are undecidable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice%27s_theorem

Right, so since Halting is such a problem, you acceptance of Rice's Theory proves that your claim is wrong.

 DECIDERS ARE REQUIRED TO REPORT ON THE SEMANTIC
OR SYNTACTIC PROPERTY OF THEIR INPUT FINITE STRINGS.

Right, and a semantic property, like halting, is DEFINED to be based on the actual execution of the program being decided on, so you just admitted your claim is wrong.

 _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 isn't a program, since it doesn't contain all the code, and when you add the code for the one and only HHH that you will claim to exist, your other claims can't stand, as that HHH will either abort its emulation, and thus not be a correct emulation that can define the behavior, or it will do a correct emulation and then never return an answer, so it isn't a decider.
Your arguement is based on the contradiction that it can be one program and do both at the same time.
Note, it needs to be one program, as you have defined that they both live in the exact same memory locations, so have the exact same deterministic code.