On 5/30/2022 12:59 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/30/2022 11:56 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2022-05-30 10:50, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/30/2022 11:45 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2022-05-30 09:57, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/30/2022 10:41 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-05-29 19:56, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/29/2022 7:51 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2022-05-29 18:14, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/29/2022 4:56 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-05-29 15:41, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/29/2022 4:30 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-05-29 15:16, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/29/2022 4:00 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-05-29 14:35, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/29/2022 2:58 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-05-29 13:26, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Agree.  I think PO probably can't understand the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proper definition of halting.  That definition doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> involve any UTMs or emulation - it's just a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mathematical definition, first of the computation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steps, then of halting in terms of there being an n
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such that computation step n is a final state of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TM.  That's TOO ABSTRACT for PO, so all he can do is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> replace it with something he thinks he /can/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand: something more concrete - a simulation run
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in some "actual machine" processing a TM description
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and tape description!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HERE IS WHY ACTUAL COMPUTER SCIENTISTS WILL AGREE WITH ME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every decider computes the mapping from its input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite string(s) to an accept or reject state based on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a semantic or syntactic property of this finite string.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Finite strings don't have semantic properties.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In computability theory, Rice's theorem states that all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-trivial semantic properties of programs are undecidable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And how 'bout them Mets?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A semantic property is one about the program's behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (for instance, does the program terminate for all inputs),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice%27s_theorem
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In formal semantics this would be the semantic property
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a finite string.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it would be a semantic property of the program. That
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> program might be *represented* as a string, but the string
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself has no semantic properties.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The semantic property of the string when it is interpreted
>>>>>>>>>>>>> as the description of a program.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> WHOOOSH!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> As soon you you add 'when it is interpreted as...' you are
>>>>>>>>>>>> no longer talking about the string but the thing which the
>>>>>>>>>>>> string represents.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. The string has no semantics on its own.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The input to H(P,P) determines (Mike's word) an execution
>>>>>>>>>>> trace of x86 instructions when correctly emulated by H.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The input to H1(P,P) determines (Mike's word) an execution
>>>>>>>>>>> trace of x86 instructions when correctly emulated by H1.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And neither of those sentences make any sense. Replacing
>>>>>>>>>> 'specifies' with 'determines' doesn't make things any clearer.
>>>>>>>>>> You need to actually DEFINE your terms.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't believe that you don't understand what that means.
>>>>>>>>> What aspect of it do you not understand?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Apart from your tortured syntax, it makes no sense to talk about
>>>>>>>> the input determining the execution trace given that H1 and H
>>>>>>>> are given the same input yet derive apparently produce different
>>>>>>>> traces.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So you simply "don't believe in" verified facts?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which "verified facts"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No one disputes that your H1 and H produce different traces. What
>>>>>> is disputed is your preposterous claim that these are both involve
>>>>>> *correct* simulations.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yet when I challenge you to reverse-engineer the correct execution
>>>>> trace of the input to H(P,P) under the assumption that H does
>>>>> correctly emulate its input you dodge because you know this proves
>>>>> that I am correct.
>>>>
>>>> Your "challenge" is entirely incoherent. You reverse-engineer things
>>>> to find out what they do, not whether they are correct. For the
>>>> latter you need some specification to compare it to [as I already
>>>> stated in the portion of my post which you dishonestly (as usual)
>>>> snipped].
>>>>
>>>> And what does it even mean to reverse engineer something "under that
>>>> [it] correctly" does something?
>>>>
>>>> If I ask you to reverse-engineer photoshop under the assumption that
>>>> it correctly compresses audio, what exactly are you supposed to do?
>>>>
>>>> André
>>>>
>>>
>>> In other words you have no idea that a correct emulation of the input
>>> to H(P,P) would emulate the first seven instruction of P?
>>
>> A *correct* emulation of P(P) would emulate the exact same sequence of
>> instructions that occurs when you run P(P) directly,
>
> This is factually incorrect.
> The first seven instructions are the same.
> The next instructions are not the same.
> You dodged my challenge because you already know this.
>

You can baselessly say that I am wrong yet when I ask you to show me the
right way to do it you stutter because you already know that I just
showed the right way.

> _P()
> [00001341](01)  55              push ebp
> [00001342](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
> [00001344](03)  8b4508          mov eax,[ebp+08]
> [00001347](01)  50              push eax
> [00001348](03)  8b4d08          mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> [0000134b](01)  51              push ecx
> [0000134c](05)  e840feffff      call 00001191
> [00001351](03)  83c408          add esp,+08
> [00001354](02)  85c0            test eax,eax
> [00001356](02)  7402            jz 0000135a
> [00001358](02)  ebfe            jmp 00001358
> [0000135a](01)  5d              pop ebp
> [0000135b](01)  c3              ret
> Size in bytes:(0027) [0000135b]
>
> _main()
> [00001361](01)  55              push ebp
> [00001362](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
> [00001364](05)  6841130000      push 00001341
> [00001369](05)  e8d3ffffff      call 00001341
> [0000136e](03)  83c404          add esp,+04
> [00001371](02)  33c0            xor eax,eax
> [00001373](01)  5d              pop ebp
> [00001374](01)  c3              ret
> Size in bytes:(0020) [00001374]
>
>  machine   stack     stack     machine    assembly
>  address   address   data      code       language
>  ========  ========  ========  =========  =============
> ...[00001361][0010224a][00000000] 55              push ebp
> ...[00001362][0010224a][00000000] 8bec            mov ebp,esp
> ...[00001364][00102246][00001341] 6841130000      push 00001341
> ...[00001369][00102242][0000136e] e8d3ffffff      call 00001341
> ...[00001341][0010223e][0010224a] 55              push ebp
> ...[00001342][0010223e][0010224a] 8bec            mov ebp,esp
> ...[00001344][0010223e][0010224a] 8b4508          mov eax,[ebp+08]
> ...[00001347][0010223a][00001341] 50              push eax
> ...[00001348][0010223a][00001341] 8b4d08          mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> ...[0000134b][00102236][00001341] 51              push ecx
> ...[0000134c][00102232][00001351] e840feffff      call 00001191
>
> Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:2122fe
> ...[00001341][002122ea][002122ee] 55              push ebp
> ...[00001342][002122ea][002122ee] 8bec            mov ebp,esp
> ...[00001344][002122ea][002122ee] 8b4508          mov eax,[ebp+08]
> ...[00001347][002122e6][00001341] 50              push eax
> ...[00001348][002122e6][00001341] 8b4d08          mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> ...[0000134b][002122e2][00001341] 51              push ecx
> ...[0000134c][002122de][00001351] e840feffff      call 00001191
> ...[00001341][0025cd12][0025cd16] 55              push ebp
> ...[00001342][0025cd12][0025cd16] 8bec            mov ebp,esp
> ...[00001344][0025cd12][0025cd16] 8b4508          mov eax,[ebp+08]
> ...[00001347][0025cd0e][00001341] 50              push eax
> ...[00001348][0025cd0e][00001341] 8b4d08          mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> ...[0000134b][0025cd0a][00001341] 51              push ecx
> ...[0000134c][0025cd06][00001351] e840feffff      call 00001191
> Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
> ...[00001351][0010223e][0010224a] 83c408          add esp,+08
> ...[00001354][0010223e][0010224a] 85c0            test eax,eax
> ...[00001356][0010223e][0010224a] 7402            jz 0000135a
> ...[0000135a][00102242][0000136e] 5d              pop ebp
> ...[0000135b][00102246][00001341] c3              ret
> ...[0000136e][0010224a][00000000] 83c404          add esp,+04
> ...[00001371][0010224a][00000000] 33c0            xor eax,eax
> ...[00001373][0010224e][00100000] 5d              pop ebp
> ...[00001374][00102252][00000000] c3              ret
> Number of Instructions Executed(15900)
>
>
>> not just the first seven instructions. Getting the first seven right
>> doesn't make something a "correct" emulation.
>>
>> And your comment fails to address my point regarding the fact that you
>> need some specification to compare to before you can meaningfully talk
>> about something being "correct".
>>
>> André
>>
>
>

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

"Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see."
Arthur Schopenhauer