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 correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as
 non-halting V2
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2024 07:28:29 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <9f76b762af6bddbc7c7298a4df96746b4240fa8e@i2pn2.org>
References: <v6rg65$32o1o$3@dont-email.me> <v7085g$3j1h$1@dont-email.me>
	<v70ok7$61d8$10@dont-email.me> <v72lvl$k9t3$1@dont-email.me>
	<v73926$mjis$17@dont-email.me> <v75950$166e9$1@dont-email.me>
	<v76dgv$1cf96$2@dont-email.me> <v8cpi5$1g95c$1@dont-email.me>
	<v8ds86$1mg72$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2024 07:28:29 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1068970"; 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: 3240
Lines: 40

Am Wed, 31 Jul 2024 12:28:38 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 7/31/2024 2:36 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-07-16 18:18:07 +0000, olcott said:
>>> On 7/16/2024 2:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-07-15 13:43:34 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>> On 7/15/2024 3:17 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-07-14 14:50:47 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>> On 7/14/2024 5:09 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-07-12 14:56:05 +0000, olcott said:

>>>>>> If the function called by DDD is not part of the input then the
>>>>>> input does not specify a behaviour and the question whether DDD
>>>>>> halts is ill-posed.
>>>>> We don't care about whether HHH halts. We know that HHH halts or
>>>>> fails to meet its design spec.
>>>>> We are only seeing if DDD correctly emulated by HHH can can possibly
>>>>> reach its own final state.
>>>> HHH does not see even that. It only sees whther that it does not
>>>> emulate DDD to its final state.
>>> No. HHH is not judging whether or not itself is a correct emulator.
"HHH is correct when it gives the result it gives" lol
>>> The semantics of the x86 instructions that emulates prove that its
>>> emulation is correct.
>> Semantics of x86 language alone doesn't prove anything. Only a detailed
>> comparison of the emulator code to the x86 semantics may prove that.
> *Infinite recursion behavior pattern*
> An emulated sequence of instructions that has no conditional branch
> instructions in this sequence is exactly repeated when it calls the same
> function with the same parameters again.
Not the case here: as Mike pointed out, we are dealing with simulation,
not with calls. Furthermore, it is not the same function when the abort
is commented out or disabled by a static variable.

> HHH continues to emulate DDD until DDD halts* or DDD proves that it must
> be aborted. This proves that no emulated HHH can possibly return to any
> emulated DDD, thus DDD never *halts.
If HHH is a decider, it halts, returning to DDD.

-- 
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.