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

On 3/14/25 11:04 AM, olcott wrote:

On 3/14/2025 1:08 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 14/03/2025 03:03, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/13/25 9:48 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/13/2025 4:21 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 13/03/2025 20:48, dbush wrote:

On 3/13/2025 4:46 PM, olcott wrote:

>
<snip>
>

Replacing the code of HHH1 with an unconditional simulator and subsequently running HHH1(DD) does reach its
own final state.
>
If someone was not a liar they would say that
these are different computations.
>

>
Only because one changes the code that DD runs and one doesn't

>
It hardly matters. Either his emulation faithfully and correctly establishes and reports (for EVERY program anyone cares to feed it) the actual halting behaviour exhibited by the program it's emulating, or it doesn't.
>

>
_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]

>
Not a program, and can not be correctly emulated beyond address 0000217A as it goes outside the input.

>
And also irrelevant, because there are only two possibilities: his code works correctly, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, clearly he's wrong; and if it does, it dumps us right back on Turing's doorstep, which means he's wrong.
>
He studiously avoids addressing this point, and that avoidance is precisely what I'd expect from a crank.
>
<snip>
>

It is very common for people to be so well indoctrinated
that they reject verified facts out-of-hand without review.

>
Yes, as you have because you have brainwashed yourself into refusing to look at what you are saying,

>
And what other people are saying.
>

to the point that you have admitted that all you work is just a fraud since you admit that you have changed core terms of art from the definitions in the system, violating the basic premise of logic.
>

>

If it doesn't, it doesn't, and it's a lot of fuss over nothing.
>
But if it /does/, then we're right back at Turing's proof, because a working emulator is just another way of running the code, and is therefore superfluous to requirements. It adds nothing to the debate, because we can just run the code and get the same answer the emulator would provide.
>

>
For the first time in the history of mankind it proves
that a simulation of a virtual machine according to
the semantics of this machine language
DOES NOT ALWAYS HAVE THE SAME BEHAVIOR AS THE DIRECT
EXECUTION OF THIS SAME MACHINE

>
WHAT "PROOF"?

>
If I'm reading this right it's actually a proof by confession, which is a new one on me. He's admitting that in some situations his simulation gives the wrong answers, which seems to me to be a straightforward of admission of defeat. If his simulation works, Turing stands, and if it fails to work, it has nothing to say. Either way, QED.
>
<snip>
>

  void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
 DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach
its own "return" instruction in any finite number of
correctly simulated steps.

And thus any HHH that correctly simulates its input DDD, can't return an answer, as to stop the simulation makes it no longer a correct simulaiton by HHH,

 That you are clueless about the semantics of something
as simple as a tiny C function proves that you are not
competent to review my work.
 

No, it is YOU who is clueless about what you are talking about, as it isn't "C Functions", but "Programs", and you use of wrong definitons just makes your whole work a fraud,