Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.

Liste des GroupesRevenir à s logic 
Sujet : Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.
De : F.Zwarts (at) *nospam* HetNet.nl (Fred. Zwarts)
Groupes : comp.theory sci.logic
Date : 11. Jul 2024, 09:32:22
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v6o1q6$2bop2$3@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
Op 10.jul.2024 om 20:32 schreef olcott:
On 7/10/2024 1:12 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Followup-To: set ]
>
In comp.theory Fred. Zwarts <F.Zwarts@hetnet.nl> wrote:
>
[ .... ]
>
Proving that the simulation is incorrect. Because a correct simulation
would not abort a halting program halfway its simulation.
>
Just for clarity, a correct simulation wouldn't abort a non-halting
program either, would it?  Or have I misunderstood this correctness?
>
[ .... ]
>
 Welcome back.
I stipulate that I am referring to 1 to ∞ steps of correct
emulation according to the semantics of the x86 language.
 This means that when HHH does correctly emulate 1 step
that *it is a correct emulation* of this 1 step, thus
making everyone that disagrees disagree with a tautology
making them look foolish.
And nobody disagrees with that. So, *you* look foolish. The disagreement is that you think that simulating only 1 step for a program that needs N steps is correct, whereas we know that a correct simulation needs N
steps. It is a finite recursion as in:
void Finite_Recursion (int N) {
   if (N > 0) Finite_Recursion (N - 1);
}
It seems that you do not understand the semantics of the x86 language, which requires the simulation of all N steps.

 We stipulate that the only measure of a correct emulation
is the semantics of the x86 programming language.
So, use it. Simulate all N steps.
We know that an aborting program does halt, so the number of steps to simulate is finite.
Your problem is that HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly up to the end. You need another simulator for that.

By this
measure when 1 to ∞ steps of DDD are correctly emulated
by each pure function x86 emulator HHH (of the infinite
set of every HHH that can possibly exist) then DDD cannot
possibly reach past its own machine address of 0000216b
and halt.
Yes. This proves that HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly up to the end.

 _DDD()
[00002163] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002164] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002166] 6863210000 push 00002163 ; push DDD
[0000216b] e853f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DDD)
[00002170] 83c404     add esp,+04
[00002173] 5d         pop ebp
[00002174] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002174]
 

Date Sujet#  Auteur
10 Jul 24 * DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.21olcott
10 Jul 24 +- Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.1olcott
10 Jul 24 +* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.18Fred. Zwarts
10 Jul 24 i+* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.3olcott
10 Jul 24 ii+- Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.1Fred. Zwarts
11 Jul 24 ii`- Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.1Richard Damon
10 Jul 24 i`* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.14Alan Mackenzie
10 Jul 24 i +* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.2olcott
11 Jul 24 i i`- Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.1Fred. Zwarts
10 Jul 24 i +* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.2olcott
11 Jul 24 i i`- Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.1Fred. Zwarts
10 Jul 24 i +* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.5olcott
10 Jul 24 i i`* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.4olcott
11 Jul 24 i i `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.3Fred. Zwarts
11 Jul 24 i i  `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.2olcott
12 Jul 24 i i   `- Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.1Richard Damon
21 Jul 24 i `* Tarski / Gödel and redefining the Foundation of Logic4olcott
21 Jul 24 i  +- Re: Tarski / Gödel and redefining the Foundation of Logic1Richard Damon
22 Jul 24 i  `* Re: Tarski / Gödel and redefining the Foundation of Logic2olcott
23 Jul 24 i   `- Re: Tarski / Gödel and redefining the Foundation of Logic1Richard Damon
11 Jul 24 `- Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.1Richard Damon

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal