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 : F.Zwarts (at) *nospam* HetNet.nl (Fred. Zwarts)
Groupes : comp.theory sci.logic
Date : 01. Jul 2024, 16:12:21
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v5uh0m$12qkb$6@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
Op 01.jul.2024 om 16:50 schreef olcott:
On 7/1/2024 9:37 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 01.jul.2024 om 14:46 schreef olcott:
On 7/1/2024 3:32 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>
_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]
>
DDD is correctly emulated by HHH which calls an
emulated HHH(DDD) to repeat the process until aborted.
Once aborted the DDD emulated by HHH immediately stops.
>
At no point in this emulation does the call from DDD
correctly emulated by HHH to HHH(DDD) ever return.
>
You can understand this or fail to understand this
disagreement is flat out incorrect.
>
I understand it, but that does not contradict that the abort is one cycle too soon, which makes it incorrect.
 On 7/1/2024 9:27 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
 > Not aborting will loop infinitely.
 That you disagree with your own self proves that you are wrong.
I did not disagree with myself. It is only you inability to understand simple facts that :
It is not: Either aborting or not-aborting is incorrect,
but: Both aborting and not-aborting are incorrect.
Therefore, proving that not-aborting is incorrect does not prove that aborting is correct.
You never found an error in this reasoning, but only repeat that not-aborting is incorrect.
Somehow you seem to think that from "not-aborting is incorrect" it follows that "aborting is correct".
Try to think a little bit. Both are incorrect.

 If it is ever the case that
 > Not aborting will loop infinitely.
THIS PROVES THAT ABORTING IS NECESSARILY CORRECT
      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
 IT IS 100% COMPLETELY CORRECT TO ABORT
 
It must abort to terminate the loop if the simulated HHH would not terminate, but this simulated HHH does return after N+1 cycles and therefore DDD will return, so here no abort is needed.
Abort is only needed if simulating an infinite recursion, not a N-cycle recursion.

Date Sujet#  Auteur
29 Jun 24 * People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language73olcott
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
29 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 language49olcott
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
30 Jun 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
30 Jun 24 ii`* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language --- repeat until acknowledged4olcott
30 Jun 24 ii `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language --- repeat until acknowledged3Richard Damon
30 Jun 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 language7Fred. Zwarts
1 Jul 24 ii`* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language6olcott
1 Jul 24 ii `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language5Fred. Zwarts
1 Jul 24 ii  `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language4olcott
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   i`- Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language1Fred. Zwarts
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