Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #135173
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory |
| Subject | Re: Kaz does not understand his own code. --- I AM PROVED EXACTLY CORRECT. |
| Date | 2025-11-06 21:03 +0000 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <20251106124608.200@kylheku.com> (permalink) |
| References | (25 earlier) <10eilo6$19had$1@dont-email.me> <20251106094124.377@kylheku.com> <10eipb8$1al85$1@dont-email.me> <20251106103813.507@kylheku.com> <10eivb8$1cn54$1@dont-email.me> |
On 2025-11-06, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/6/2025 12:46 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2025-11-06, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/6/2025 12:14 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>> On 2025-11-06, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/6/2025 11:16 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-11-06, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Call it a C interpreter. I will see if I can write one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What for? Abstract C interpretation shows the same issue that was
>>>>>> reproduced using the x86utm. We can pick up abandoned simulations and
>>>>>> continue them to show that the decider is incorrect.
>>>>>
>>>>> You got confused about resuming an aborted simulation
>>>>> by trying to start it in a different machine state.
>>>>
>>>> The point is that whether these remarks are true or not, the situation
>>>> is the same in x86utm-side work as in the abstract pseudo-interpretation
>>>> exercise.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No you are confused on the C side and confused
>>> on the x86 side it is much more difficult to
>>> show your mistake on the x86 side because no
>>> one here (besides me) understands the x86 side.
>>
>> So, let's get this straight:
>>
>> Because ... I ... supposedly do not understand the x86 side (and neither
>> does anyone else besides you) .... you ... are not able to show the
>> mistake?
>>
>
> I will not tolerate going through any convoluted mess.
Because you are not competent as a software engineer?
My reckoning.cpp source file is substantially more cleanly coded
than just about everything else in the x86utm.
It's a total of 215 lines of code, including all the #include
statements, declarations, blank lines and lines with only
curly braces.
Could you even pass a technical interview for job today
if you can't wrap your head around 200 lines of clear code,
which references API's in your own work?
> The C code I can spot the error in less than a minute.
In a way that makes zero sense.
>> Is this how you interacted with your colleagues, managers and customers
>> in your career as coding technician?
>>
>
> These people did not lie to disparage me.
No, they lied not to create trouble, allowing you to believe
you are more competent than you actually are.
Professional settings are often quite opposite to Usenet in
that regard.
It's not unusual to even get a good (or at least okay) reference from a
former job where you screwed up. They are just glad you're not there,
and don't have anything to lose by avoiding negativity.
>> What /ATTEMPT/ have you made to show what is wrong on the x86 side?
>>
>> People who /CAN/ show that something is wrong are generally not concerned
>> with whether the mistaken party understands it, as a first priority,
>> before showing anything at all. They show what is wrong, and then if it
>> is not understood they try to explain it.
>>
>> If I'm wrong, it's not even important that I understand it; it's
>> important that you show that to the /WORLD/ to defend your work
>> against a wrong claim.
>>
>>> If you resume your C code at the same total machine
>>> state where H.i==3 and H has returned then you get
>>> the exact same result. If you do this differently
>>> then you didn't actually resume.
>>
>> No, we do not want to roll back the H control flow to an earlier
>> state. Nothing like that is going on.
>
> you didn't actually resume the simulation
> you cheated instead.
I admit there is some implicit behavior going on: the assumption that
the framework can identify the abandoned simulation and take it over.
I did it that way because it was done that way in the x86utm work.
(out of necessity, due to not wanting to touch the
Halt7.obj test case in any way).
I have simplified it to avoid the hidden behavior.
Please identify what you believe to be wrong in the version below.
The simulating decider H takes the simulation as a parameter.
It is now explicit how the "reckoning" code knows about the
simulation object and where that takes place (in main).
Assume D() is as before.
#include <interp.h>
void D(void);
bool H(void (*p)(void), interp *si)
{
for (i = 0; i < 3; i++) {
if (iter_step(s))
return true;
}
return false;
}
void D(void)
{
interp *s = interp_create(D);
if (H(D, s)) { for (;;); }
return;
}
int main(void)
{
interp *s = interp_create(D);
bool result = H(D, s);
printf("Input halts = %s.\n", result ? "true" : "false");
// reckoning: do we hang in this loop? Or will it halt?
while (!interp_step(s)) { /* nothing */ }
prinf("Input halted!\n");
// If H had returned false, "incorrect" is printed.
printf("H was %s about D.\n", result ? "correct" : "incorrect");
}
The continued simulation of abandoned D is explicitly carried out by the
while loop in main; we are no longer relying on the framework to know
about the "interp *s" handle behind the scenes and doing this loop after
the test case.
>> Just code other than H picks up the interp object and makes more
>> interp_step calls on it.
>>
>> The post I just made, specifying a different API for simulating
>> deciders, makes everything as clear as it can possibly be.
You snipped it, but there it is above again.
--
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
Back to comp.theory | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
x86utm with "reckoning" code: git repo with published commit. Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-26 05:29 +0000
Re: x86utm with "reckoning" code: git repo with published commit. Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-10-26 09:52 +0000
Re: x86utm with "reckoning" code: git repo with published commit. Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-26 15:20 +0000
Re: x86utm with "reckoning" code: git repo with published commit. "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-10-26 12:37 -0700
Re: x86utm with "reckoning" code: git repo with published commit. Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-26 20:30 +0000
Re: x86utm with "reckoning" code: git repo with published commit. "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-10-26 13:43 -0700
Re: x86utm with "reckoning" code: git repo with published commit. "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-10-26 13:49 -0700
Re: x86utm with "reckoning" code: git repo with published commit. Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-26 21:46 +0000
Re: x86utm with "reckoning" code: git repo with published commit. "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-10-26 22:16 -0700
Re: x86utm with "reckoning" code: git repo with published commit. "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-10-26 22:17 -0700
Re: x86utm with "reckoning" code: git repo with published commit. Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-10-31 04:51 +0000
Re: x86utm with "reckoning" code: git repo with published commit. Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-31 05:18 +0000
Re: x86utm with "reckoning" code: git repo with published commit. Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-10-31 15:38 +0000
Re: x86utm with "reckoning" code: git repo with published commit. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-31 11:14 -0500
Re: x86utm with "reckoning" code: git repo with published commit. Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-10-31 16:35 +0000
Re: x86utm with "reckoning" code: git repo with published commit. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-31 11:55 -0500
Re: x86utm with "reckoning" code: git repo with published commit. Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-10-31 13:51 -0400
Re: x86utm with "reckoning" code: git repo with published commit. Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-31 18:03 +0000
Re: x86utm with "reckoning" code: git repo with published commit. Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-10-31 14:10 -0400
Re: x86utm with "reckoning" code: git repo with published commit. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-31 11:23 -0500
Re: x86utm with "reckoning" code: git repo with published commit. Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-10-31 13:19 -0400
Re: x86utm with "reckoning" code: git repo with published commit. Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-31 17:37 +0000
Re: x86utm with "reckoning" code: git repo with published commit. Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-04 18:04 +0000
Re: x86utm with "reckoning" code: git repo with published commit. Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-04 18:36 +0000
Re: x86utm with "reckoning" code: git repo with published commit. Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-04 18:59 +0000
Re: x86utm with "reckoning" code: git repo with published commit. Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-04 19:36 +0000
Re: x86utm with "reckoning" code: git repo with published commit. Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-04 21:03 +0000
Re: x86utm with "reckoning" code: git repo with published commit. Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-04 21:58 +0000
Re: x86utm with "reckoning" code: git repo with published commit. Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-05 01:20 +0000
Kaz does not understand his own code. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-04 20:14 -0600
Re: Kaz does not understand his own code. Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-05 02:43 +0000
Re: Kaz does not understand his own code. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-04 21:06 -0600
Re: Kaz does not understand his own code. Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-05 03:33 +0000
Re: Kaz does not understand his own code. joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-11-05 07:47 +0000
Re: Kaz does not understand his own code --- I AM PROVED EXACTLY CORRECT olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-04 21:51 -0600
Re: Kaz does not understand his own code --- I AM PROVED EXACTLY CORRECT Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-05 05:12 +0000
Re: Kaz does not understand his own code. --- I AM PROVED EXACTLY CORRECT. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-04 23:23 -0600
Re: Kaz does not understand his own code. --- I AM PROVED EXACTLY CORRECT. Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-05 07:01 +0000
Re: Kaz does not understand his own code. --- I AM PROVED EXACTLY CORRECT. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-05 08:55 -0600
Re: Kaz does not understand his own code. --- I AM PROVED EXACTLY CORRECT. Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-05 17:35 +0000
Re: Kaz does not understand his own code. --- I AM PROVED EXACTLY CORRECT. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-05 12:17 -0600
Re: Kaz does not understand his own code. --- I AM PROVED EXACTLY CORRECT. dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-05 13:43 -0500
Re: Kaz does not understand his own code. --- I AM PROVED EXACTLY CORRECT. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-05 19:24 -0600
Re: Kaz does not understand his own code. --- I AM PROVED EXACTLY CORRECT. dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-05 20:39 -0500
Re: Kaz does not understand his own code. --- I AM PROVED EXACTLY CORRECT. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-05 19:43 -0600
Re: Kaz does not understand his own code. --- I AM PROVED EXACTLY CORRECT. Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-06 01:56 +0000
Re: Kaz does not understand his own code. --- I AM PROVED EXACTLY CORRECT. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-05 20:21 -0600
Re: Kaz does not understand his own code. --- I AM PROVED EXACTLY CORRECT. Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-06 04:36 +0000
Re: Kaz does not understand his own code. --- I AM PROVED EXACTLY CORRECT. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-05 23:12 -0600
Re: Kaz does not understand his own code. --- I AM PROVED EXACTLY CORRECT. dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 07:54 -0500
Re: Kaz does not understand his own code. --- I AM PROVED EXACTLY CORRECT. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 09:19 -0600
Re: Kaz does not understand his own code. --- I AM PROVED EXACTLY CORRECT. Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-06 16:39 +0000
Re: Kaz does not understand his own code. --- I AM PROVED EXACTLY CORRECT. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 11:10 -0600
Re: Kaz does not understand his own code. --- I AM PROVED EXACTLY CORRECT. Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-06 17:16 +0000
Re: Kaz does not understand his own code. --- I AM PROVED EXACTLY CORRECT. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 11:26 -0600
Re: Kaz does not understand his own code. --- I AM PROVED EXACTLY CORRECT. dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 12:34 -0500
Re: Kaz does not understand his own code. --- I AM PROVED EXACTLY CORRECT. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 11:58 -0600
Re: Kaz does not understand his own code. --- I AM PROVED EXACTLY CORRECT. dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 13:01 -0500
Re: Kaz does not understand his own code. --- I AM PROVED EXACTLY CORRECT. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 12:04 -0600
Re: Kaz does not understand his own code. --- I AM PROVED EXACTLY CORRECT. dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 13:15 -0500
Re: Kaz does not understand his own code. --- I AM PROVED EXACTLY CORRECT. Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-06 18:37 +0000
Re: Kaz does not understand his own code. --- I AM PROVED EXACTLY CORRECT. Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-06 20:03 +0000
Re: Kaz does not understand his own code. --- I AM PROVED EXACTLY CORRECT. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 14:24 -0600
Re: Kaz does not understand his own code. --- I AM PROVED EXACTLY CORRECT. Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-06 21:16 +0000
Re: Kaz does not understand his own code. --- I AM PROVED EXACTLY CORRECT. Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-06 21:39 +0000
Re: Kaz does not understand his own code. --- I AM PROVED EXACTLY CORRECT. Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-06 22:10 +0000
Re: Kaz does not understand his own code. --- I AM PROVED EXACTLY CORRECT. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 14:04 -0600
Re: Kaz does not understand his own code. --- I AM PROVED EXACTLY CORRECT. Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-06 20:45 +0000
Re: Kaz does not understand his own code. --- I AM PROVED EXACTLY CORRECT. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 14:57 -0600
Re: Kaz does not understand his own code. --- I AM PROVED EXACTLY CORRECT. Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-06 18:14 +0000
Re: Kaz does not understand his own code. --- I AM PROVED EXACTLY CORRECT. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 12:27 -0600
Re: Kaz does not understand his own code. --- I AM PROVED EXACTLY CORRECT. Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-06 18:46 +0000
Re: Kaz does not understand his own code. --- I AM PROVED EXACTLY CORRECT. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 14:10 -0600
Re: Kaz does not understand his own code. --- I AM PROVED EXACTLY CORRECT. Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-06 21:03 +0000
Re: Kaz does not understand his own code. --- I AM PROVED EXACTLY CORRECT. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-05 19:54 -0600
Re: Kaz does not understand his own code. --- I AM PROVED EXACTLY CORRECT. dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-05 21:08 -0500
Re: Kaz does not understand his own code. --- I AM PROVED EXACTLY CORRECT. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-05 20:24 -0600
Re: Kaz does not understand his own code. --- I AM PROVED EXACTLY CORRECT. dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-05 22:05 -0500
Re: Kaz does not understand his own code. --- I AM PROVED EXACTLY CORRECT. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-05 21:15 -0600
Olcott proves he's not interested in an honest dialogue by actively avoiding being clear dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-05 22:18 -0500
Re: Olcott proves he's not interested in an honest dialogue by actively avoiding being clear olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-05 21:27 -0600
Re: Olcott proves he's not interested in an honest dialogue by actively avoiding being clear dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-05 22:32 -0500
Re: Olcott proves he's not interested in an honest dialogue by actively avoiding being clear olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-05 21:38 -0600
Re: Olcott proves he's not interested in an honest dialogue by actively avoiding being clear dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-05 22:39 -0500
Re: Olcott proves he's not interested in an honest dialogue by actively avoiding being clear olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-05 21:50 -0600
Re: Olcott proves he's not interested in an honest dialogue by actively avoiding being clear dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-05 22:53 -0500
Re: Olcott proves he's not interested in an honest dialogue by actively avoiding being clear "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-05 19:57 -0800
Re: Olcott proves he's not interested in an honest dialogue by actively avoiding being clear olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-05 21:57 -0600
Re: Olcott proves he's not interested in an honest dialogue by actively avoiding being clear dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-05 23:04 -0500
Re: Olcott proves he's not interested in an honest dialogue by actively avoiding being clear olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-05 22:15 -0600
Re: Olcott proves he's not interested in an honest dialogue by actively avoiding being clear dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-05 23:25 -0500
Re: Olcott proves he's not interested in an honest dialogue by actively avoiding being clear olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-05 23:00 -0600
Re: Olcott proves he's not interested in an honest dialogue by actively avoiding being clear dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 07:51 -0500
Re: Olcott proves he's not interested in an honest dialogue by actively avoiding being clear olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 09:16 -0600
Re: Olcott proves he's not interested in an honest dialogue by actively avoiding being clear dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 10:22 -0500
Re: Olcott proves he's not interested in an honest dialogue by actively avoiding being clear olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 10:08 -0600
Re: Olcott proves he's not interested in an honest dialogue by actively avoiding being clear dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 11:26 -0500
Re: Olcott proves he's not interested in an honest dialogue by actively avoiding being clear olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 10:49 -0600
Re: Olcott proves he's not interested in an honest dialogue by actively avoiding being clear dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 11:56 -0500
Re: Olcott proves he's not interested in an honest dialogue by actively avoiding being clear olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 11:16 -0600
Re: Kaz does not understand his own code. --- I AM PROVED EXACTLY CORRECT. dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-05 13:49 -0500
Re: Kaz does not understand his own code. --- I AM PROVED EXACTLY CORRECT. joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-11-05 18:55 +0000
Re: Kaz does not understand his own code. --- I AM PROVED EXACTLY CORRECT. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-05 19:23 -0600
Re: Kaz does not understand his own code. --- I AM PROVED EXACTLY CORRECT. joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-11-06 14:33 +0000
Re: Kaz does not understand his own code. --- I AM PROVED EXACTLY CORRECT. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 09:13 -0600
Re: Kaz does not understand his own code. --- I AM PROVED EXACTLY CORRECT. Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-05 21:38 +0000
Re: Kaz does not understand his own code. --- I AM PROVED EXACTLY CORRECT. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-05 19:15 -0600
Re: Kaz does not understand his own code. --- I AM PROVED EXACTLY CORRECT. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-05 19:41 -0600
Re: Kaz does not understand his own code. --- I AM PROVED EXACTLY CORRECT. dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-05 20:45 -0500
Re: Kaz does not understand his own code. --- I AM PROVED EXACTLY CORRECT. "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-05 18:39 -0800
Re: Kaz does not understand his own code. --- I AM PROVED EXACTLY CORRECT. "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-05 12:04 -0800
Re: Kaz does not understand his own code. --- I AM PROVED EXACTLY CORRECT. joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-11-05 07:42 +0000
Re: Kaz does not understand his own code. --- I AM PROVED EXACTLY CORRECT. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-05 05:33 -0600
Re: Kaz does not understand his own code. --- I AM PROVED EXACTLY CORRECT. Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-05 16:43 +0000
Re: Kaz does not understand his own code. --- I AM PROVED EXACTLY CORRECT. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-05 10:56 -0600
csiph-web