| Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com>: Dec 17 01:43PM -0800 > he's a crank, /I/ know it, /he/ has surely been told for years (by > people with "mediocre minds") -- no need to give him a free ticket > past everyone's killfile [1]. [...] Agreed. And if you feel the need to respond, he's pretty much taken over comp.theory. He does have a bad habit of cross-posting to other newsgroups, so be sure to edit your Newsgroups: line as needed. -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com Working, but not speaking, for Philips Healthcare void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */ |
| olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com>: Dec 17 03:57PM -0600 On 12/17/2020 3:10 PM, Jorgen Grahn wrote: > past everyone's killfile [1]. > /Jorgen > [1] This is probably a mixed metaphor, but I like it :-) I only cross-post the most significant developments and I always put the follow-up to comp.theory. -- Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein |
| Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com>: Dec 17 11:12PM On 17/12/2020 21:10, Jorgen Grahn wrote: > past everyone's killfile [1]. > /Jorgen > [1] This is probably a mixed metaphor, but I like it :-) Maybe "ignore subthread" would be a good option for people wanting to ignore PO's posts and ALSO any responses to PO's posts. (It works well for me, in certain other newsgroups.) Mike. |
| olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com>: Dec 17 03:19PM -0600 On 12/17/2020 1:03 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > No, because though the halting question can be answered for that test > case as a whole, it cannot be answered by that specific function that is > being tested inside the test case, namely Halts. This is why I avoid replying to you and instead focus on making my code speak for me. > You argue that it can, using a broken definition of "function" in which > different calls to Halts are occurring with different inputs. If you saw the full 220 page execution trace and could see all the source code you would understand that this is flatly incorrect. > This is because the execution substrate is a hacked version of x86 which > injects control flow changes into code based on global state inside the > emulator. It does not fricking do this where the Hell did you get this idea? > object code still looks like it is functional, you're claiming that the > apparatus is a correct implementation of the entities in the proof. > This is not so. void H_Hat(u32 P) { u32 Input_Halts = Halts(P, P); if (Input_Halts) HERE: goto HERE; else HALT } int main() { u32 Input_Would_Halt = Halts((u32)H_Hat, (u32)H_Hat); Output_Debug_Trace(); Output("Input_Would_Halt =", Input_Would_Halt); HALT; } _H_Hat() [000005e6](01) 55 push ebp [000005e7](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp [000005e9](01) 51 push ecx [000005ea](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] [000005ed](01) 50 push eax [000005ee](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] [000005f1](01) 51 push ecx [000005f2](05) e8effdffff call 000003e6 [000005f7](03) 83c408 add esp,+08 [000005fa](03) 8945fc mov [ebp-04],eax [000005fd](04) 837dfc00 cmp dword [ebp-04],+00 [00000601](02) 7404 jz 00000607 [00000603](02) ebfe jmp 00000603 [00000605](02) eb01 jmp 00000608 [00000607](01) f4 hlt [00000608](02) 8be5 mov esp,ebp [0000060a](01) 5d pop ebp [0000060b](01) c3 ret _main() [00000616](01) 55 push ebp [00000617](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp [00000619](01) 51 push ecx [0000061a](05) 68e6050000 push 000005e6 [0000061f](05) 68e6050000 push 000005e6 [00000624](05) e8bdfdffff call 000003e6 [00000629](03) 83c408 add esp,+08 [0000062c](03) 8945fc mov [ebp-04],eax [0000062f](05) e8f2fcffff call 00000326 [00000634](03) 8b45fc mov eax,[ebp-04] [00000637](01) 50 push eax [00000638](05) 68a3020000 push 000002a3 [0000063d](05) e894fcffff call 000002d6 [00000642](03) 83c408 add esp,+08 [00000645](01) f4 hlt [00000646](02) 8be5 mov esp,ebp [00000648](01) 5d pop ebp [00000649](01) c3 ret Output_Debug_Trace() Trace_List.size(24) ---[00000616](01) 55 push ebp ---[00000617](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp ---[00000619](01) 51 push ecx ---[0000061a](05) 68e6050000 push 000005e6 ---[0000061f](05) 68e6050000 push 000005e6 ---[00000624](05) e8bdfdffff call 000003e6 --CALL [000003e6] ---[000005e6](01) 55 push ebp ---[000005e7](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp ---[000005e9](01) 51 push ecx ---[000005ea](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] ---[000005ed](01) 50 push eax ---[000005ee](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] ---[000005f1](01) 51 push ecx ---[000005f2](05) e8effdffff call 000003e6 --CALL [000003e6] ---[000005e6](01) 55 push ebp ---[000005e7](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp ---[000005e9](01) 51 push ecx ---[000005ea](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] ---[000005ed](01) 50 push eax ---[000005ee](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] ---[000005f1](01) 51 push ecx ---[000005f2](05) e8effdffff call 000003e6 --CALL [000003e6] Input Aborted because of INFINITE RECURSION from [000005f2] to Every time that the same function is called from the same machine address a second time without any control flow instructions in-between (within an execution trace) is a case of infinite recursion. This is shown at execution trace lines 14-22 above. (1) The C code does map to its machine code. (2) The machine code does map to its execution trace. (3) The execution trace does map to infinite recursion. These three verifiable facts add up to I AM CORRECT. -- Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein |
| You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to comp.lang.c+++unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. |
No comments:
Post a Comment