Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DDD emulated by HHH --- (does not refer to prior posts)
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2024 18:49:31 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <98cab2236f5cf14547da155651a24f9561e2b076@i2pn2.org>
References: <vajdta$2qe9s$1@dont-email.me> <vak3a0$2teq9$1@dont-email.me>
	<vakhnf$302rl$2@dont-email.me> <vamk7l$3d7ki$1@dont-email.me>
	<van3v7$3f6c0$5@dont-email.me> <vap7b1$3sobs$1@dont-email.me>
	<vapvbc$3vumk$5@dont-email.me>
	<e10aee5b3ede543da42ba76ac4d7f0a0fe762695@i2pn2.org>
	<vasmn8$hmpd$1@dont-email.me> <vaumg9$ut9s$1@dont-email.me>
	<vav0r9$10jsm$1@dont-email.me> <vavb4a$11uqn$1@dont-email.me>
	<vavca1$1283f$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2024 18:49:31 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="359007"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 3538
Lines: 43

Am Sat, 31 Aug 2024 10:19:28 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 8/31/2024 9:59 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 31.aug.2024 om 14:03 schreef olcott:
>>> On 8/31/2024 4:07 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 30.aug.2024 om 16:58 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 8/30/2024 9:56 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>> Am Thu, 29 Aug 2024 09:07:39 -0500 schrieb olcott:

>>>>>>> HHH correctly predicts what the behavior of DDD would be if this
>>>>>>> HHH never aborted its emulation of DDD.
>>>>>> Problem is, DDD is then not calling itself, but the non-input of a
>>>>>> not-aborting HHH.
>>>>> *This is before any aborting occurs*
>>>> Here is your problem. The code of the program and its meaning
>>>> according to the semantics of the x86 language, does not suddenly
>>>> change when the aborting occurs.
^ important
>>> You cannot possibly say one damn thing about the behavior of DDD until
>>> you first understand that a world class x86 emulator that HHH calls
>>> does enable HHH to correctly emulate itself emulating DDD and the
>>> following execution trace proves this.
>> And when this unmodified world class x86 simulator was given olcott's
>> DDD based on the aborting HHH as input, it showed that this has halting
>> behaviour.
>> THIS IS A VERIFIED FACT! Even olcott has verified it.
>> This correct simulation by the unmodified world class simulator tells
>> us that the program has a halting behaviour.
>> Your *modification* of the simulator stops the simulation before it can
>> see the halting behaviour and decides that the input is non-halting.
>> We know which one is correct: the unmodified world class simulator, not
>> the *modified* one, which aborts one cycle too soon..


>> Still dreaming of the HHH that does an infinite recursion?
> Before we can proceed to the next step you must first agree that the
> second emulation of DDD by the emulated HHH is proven to be correct on
> the basis that it does emulate the first four instructions of DDD.
The fourth instruction (the call) encompasses quite a few further
instructions, which must all(!) be simulated until it returns. Only
then is it finished.

-- 
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.