Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language

Liste des GroupesRevenir à s logic 
Sujet : Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language
De : richard (at) *nospam* damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Groupes : comp.theory sci.logic
Date : 01. Jul 2024, 01:14:03
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <v5sorr$1kfbr$10@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 6/30/24 6:41 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/30/2024 4:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/30/24 5:48 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/30/2024 2:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/30/24 1:18 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/30/2024 3:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-06-29 16:09:19 +0000, olcott said:
>
People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with
the semantics of the x86 language. That is isomorphic to
trying to get away with disagreeing with arithmetic.
>
typedef void (*ptr)();
int H0(ptr P);
>
void Infinite_Loop()
{
   HERE: goto HERE;
}
>
void Infinite_Recursion()
{
   Infinite_Recursion();
}
>
void DDD()
{
   H0(DDD);
}
>
int main()
{
   H0(Infinite_Loop);
   H0(Infinite_Recursion);
   H0(DDD);
}
>
Every C programmer that knows what an x86 emulator is knows
that when H0 emulates the machine language of Infinite_Loop,
Infinite_Recursion, and DDD that it must abort these emulations
so that itself can terminate normally.
>
When this is construed as non-halting criteria then simulating
termination analyzer H0 is correct to reject these inputs as
non-halting by returning 0 to its caller.
>
Simulating termination analyzers must report on the behavior
that their finite string input specifies thus H0 must report
that DDD correctly emulated by H0 remains stuck in recursive
simulation.
>
<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>
>
People are trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics
of the x86 language by disagreeing that
>
The call from DDD to HHH(DDD) when N steps of DDD are correctly
emulated by any pure function x86 emulator HHH cannot possibly
return.
>
_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]
>
>
*A 100% complete and total rewrite of the prior paper*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381636432_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_P
>
Nothing above is or points to any evdence about the alleged disagreement.
>
>
Of course not. I only said the actual truth.
>
Richard just said that he affirms that when DDD correctly
simulated by HHH calls HHH(DDD) that this call returns even
though the semantics of the x86 language disagrees.
>
What in the sematics of the x86 language, which INCLUDES that ever instruction WILL be followed by the next instruction, says that the HHH that is calld by DDD won't eventually return.
>
Since you assert that HHH(DDD) called by main returns, then by your requreement that HHH be a "pure function" ALL copies of it will do the same thing.
>
Yes, the EMULATION of HHH by HHH, but that can not be the "behavior of the input" as that "behavior" depends on more than just the input.
>
>
Therefore DDD correctly simulated by HHH DOES NOT HALT.
Thus HHH correctly reports that DDD DOES NOT HALT.
>
>
And then it doesn't correct emulate the input, and thus is a LIAR.
>
 You already know that you are the liar here and are
lying about not knowing this.
 _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]
 The call from DDD to HHH(DDD) when N steps of DDD are
correctly emulated by any pure function x86 emulator
HHH at machine address 0000217a cannot possibly return.
 
The problem is that the N steps emulated by HHH are not, and CAN NOT be the "behavior of the input", but only the complete emulation of the input.
The problem with just the N steps, is that NOTHING about the input specifies that number N, so it isn't part of the input, and the "behavior of the input" must be determined by just the input (and what it represents).
Thus, your "argument" is based on invalid definitions, showing your utter stupidity.

Date Sujet#  Auteur
29 Jun 24 * People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language72olcott
29 Jun 24 +* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language21Richard Damon
29 Jun 24 i`* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language20olcott
29 Jun 24 i `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language19Richard Damon
29 Jun 24 i  `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language18olcott
29 Jun 24 i   `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language17Richard Damon
29 Jun 24 i    `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language16olcott
29 Jun 24 i     `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language15Richard Damon
29 Jun 24 i      `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language14olcott
29 Jun 24 i       `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language13Richard Damon
29 Jun 24 i        `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language12olcott
29 Jun 24 i         `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language11Richard Damon
29 Jun 24 i          `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language10olcott
29 Jun 24 i           `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language9Richard Damon
30 Jun 24 i            `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language8olcott
30 Jun 24 i             `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language7Richard Damon
30 Jun 24 i              `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language6olcott
30 Jun 24 i               `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language5Richard Damon
30 Jun 24 i                `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language4olcott
30 Jun 24 i                 `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language3Richard Damon
30 Jun 24 i                  `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language2olcott
30 Jun 24 i                   `- Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language1Richard Damon
30 Jun 24 +* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language48olcott
30 Jun 24 i+* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language37Richard Damon
30 Jun 24 ii+* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language3olcott
30 Jun 24 iii+- Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language1Richard Damon
30 Jun 24 iii`- Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language1Richard Damon
30 Jun 24 ii+* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language29olcott
30 Jun 24 iii`* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language28Richard Damon
1 Jul 24 iii `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language27olcott
1 Jul 24 iii  `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language26Richard Damon
1 Jul 24 iii   `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language25olcott
1 Jul 24 iii    `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language24Richard Damon
1 Jul 24 iii     `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language23olcott
1 Jul 24 iii      `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language22Richard Damon
1 Jul 24 iii       `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language21olcott
1 Jul 24 iii        `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language20Richard Damon
1 Jul 24 iii         `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language19olcott
1 Jul 24 iii          `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language18Richard Damon
1 Jul 24 iii           `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language17olcott
1 Jul 24 iii            `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language16Richard Damon
1 Jul 24 iii             +* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language11olcott
1 Jul 24 iii             i`* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language10Richard Damon
1 Jul 24 iii             i `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language9olcott
2 Jul 24 iii             i  +* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language3Richard Damon
2 Jul 24 iii             i  i`* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language2olcott
2 Jul 24 iii             i  i `- Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language1Richard Damon
2 Jul 24 iii             i  `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language5Richard Damon
2 Jul 24 iii             i   `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language4olcott
2 Jul 24 iii             i    `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language3Richard Damon
2 Jul 24 iii             i     `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language2olcott
2 Jul 24 iii             i      `- Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language1Richard Damon
1 Jul 24 iii             `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language4olcott
1 Jul 24 iii              `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language3Richard Damon
1 Jul 24 iii               `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language2olcott
2 Jul 24 iii                `- Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language1Richard Damon
1 Jul 24 ii`* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language --- repeat until acknowledged4olcott
1 Jul 24 ii `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language --- repeat until acknowledged3Richard Damon
1 Jul 24 ii  `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language --- repeat until acknowledged2olcott
1 Jul 24 ii   `- Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language --- repeat until acknowledged1Richard Damon
1 Jul 24 i+* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language6Fred. Zwarts
1 Jul 24 ii`* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language5olcott
1 Jul 24 ii `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language4Fred. Zwarts
1 Jul 24 ii  `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language3olcott
1 Jul 24 ii   `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language2olcott
1 Jul 24 ii    `- Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language1Fred. Zwarts
3 Jul 24 i`* DDD correctly emulated by any pure function HHH that can possibly exist DOES NOT HALT4olcott
3 Jul 24 i `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by any pure function HHH that can possibly exist DOES NOT HALT3Fred. Zwarts
3 Jul 24 i  `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by any pure function HHH that can possibly exist DOES NOT HALT2olcott
4 Jul 24 i   `- Re: DDD correctly emulated by any pure function HHH that can possibly exist DOES NOT HALT1Fred. Zwarts
1 Jul 24 +- Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language1Fred. Zwarts
1 Jul 24 `- Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language1olcott

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal