Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: joes 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: 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.