Re: Kaz does not understand his own code. --- I AM PROVED EXACTLY CORRECT.

From	olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups	comp.theory
Subject	Re: Kaz does not understand his own code. --- I AM PROVED EXACTLY CORRECT.
Date	2025-11-06 12:27 -0600
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<10eipb8$1al85$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	(22 earlier) <10ei5pj$14i1k$2@dont-email.me> <10eiea6$1731j$1@dont-email.me> <20251106091138.54@kylheku.com> <10eilo6$19had$1@dont-email.me> <20251106094124.377@kylheku.com>

Show all headers | View raw

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.

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.

> Now, the remarks are not true. You have misunderstood the technique.
> 
> The simulation of D is represented by a bunch of state (which in
> the abstract exercise is represened by an "interp *s" handle;
> in the x86utm Halt7 test case it is several objects, tracked by pointers with
> names like slave_state and slave_stack).
> 
> Conducting that simulation does not specifically require H.  It requires
> /something/ to make repeated calls to interp_step(s).  None of the simulation
> state is inside H: it is all encapsualted inside the "interp" object. After any
> interp_step(s) call made by H, that simulation could be handed off to another
> agent to make subsequent calls to interp_step; the result of stepping
> the simulation would be the same.
> 
> When H walks away from the interpretation and returns false, we are not
> interested in resuming H from the point where it made the decision.
> (Which lies sometime between the most recent interp_step call and the
> return false statement).
> 
> To resume D, all we need is the "interp *s" API handle, and to start
> making interp_step(s) calls.
> 
> We do not need to do anythning with H; that doesn't make sense.
> 
> H, and the simulation of D, are like separate threads. We only care
> about the D thread. After H detaches from that thread, is the remaining
> execution of that thread terminating.
> 
>>> The only reason to rework things into a new C interpreter framework
>>> would be to show that the problem was somehow caused by the x86utm.
>>>
>>
>> Not at all. The details of x86 have proven to be
>> over everyone's head.
> 
> That's simply untrue. People have built your code and meaningfully
> experimented with it.
> 
> What is your evidence for the belief that it was over anyone's head?
> 
> It's easy to work with; the compiled x86 functions are mostly small, and
> a complete disassembly is given of the entire test case when it is run
> so things are easy to follow.
> 
> That said, neither interpreted nor compiled C is the best mode of presentation
> of this material to academia; switching from one to the other is mostly a
> lateral, unproductive move.
> 


-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

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