• Re: DD correctly emulated by HHH --- Correct Emulation Defined

    From Fred. Zwarts@21:1/5 to All on Tue Mar 25 21:06:09 2025
    Op 25.mrt.2025 om 13:26 schreef olcott:
    On 3/25/2025 6:19 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 3/24/25 10:10 PM, olcott wrote:

    I told you too damn many times that all this stuff
    is in the same global memory space of the compiled
    object file.


    And thus either all the global memory space is what is defined to be
    the input, and thus every case you think of is a different input,

    _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]

    Correctly emulated is defined as emulated according to the
    semantics of the x86 language.

    The question does the machine code of DDD (the program under test)
    reach is own "ret" instruction when correctly emulated by HHH?

    is not effected by this.


    It is not very interesting to know whether a simulator is able to report
    that it did not reach the end of the simulation of a program that halts
    in direct execution.
    It is interesting to know:
    'Is there an algorithm that can determine for all possible inputs
    whether the input specifies a program that (according to the semantics
    of the machine language) halts when directly executed?'
    This question seems undecidable for Olcott.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to olcott on Tue Mar 25 18:55:56 2025
    On 3/25/25 8:26 AM, olcott wrote:
    On 3/25/2025 6:19 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 3/24/25 10:10 PM, olcott wrote:

    I told you too damn many times that all this stuff
    is in the same global memory space of the compiled
    object file.


    And thus either all the global memory space is what is defined to be
    the input, and thus every case you think of is a different input,

    _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]

    Correctly emulated is defined as emulated according to the
    semantics of the x86 language.

    Which means this input need the actual code of the HHH that it calls to
    be included with it.


    The question does the machine code of DDD (the program under test)
    reach is own "ret" instruction when correctly emulated by HHH?

    So, are you asserting that your HHH ACTUALLY does a correct emulation of
    the input, which includes the code for that HHH?

    If so, then THAT DDD (which calls the actually correctly emulating HHH)
    will not halt, but that HHH will not answer.


    is not effected by this.

    or your "decider" fails to meet the requirements of being the pure
    function that you have admited to be a known base requirement.


    We cannot move on to any other point while you continue
    to deny the proven facts of the first point.

    int DD()
    {
      int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
      if (Halt_Status)
        HERE: goto HERE;
      return Halt_Status;
    }

    This first point is this:
    Would HHH be correct to reject DD as non-halting?

    No. because if HHH does that, then DD is halting, as HHH must not do a
    correct emulation to do that rejection, and thus we see that the actual
    correct emulation of the input will halt.


    Sorry, you are just proving that everything you say is likely a lie,
    because you just can remember the meaning of the words so you create
    your own, INCONSISTENT meaning as you go.


    You cannot show any example of that above.

    Sure, many times, the problem is you keep on trying to make HHH be two different programs at once, which it can't be, so your argument is just
    built on a lie.


    Sorry, you are just proving your ignorance.



    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)