Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Overview of proof that the input to HHH(DDD) specifies non-halting
 behavior
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2024 15:43:28 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <v9gghg$2cth$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v8jh7m$30k55$1@dont-email.me> <v99870$14mlk$1@dont-email.me>
 <0f8f134fe961ee00910cce1d7f05b632d7567c6c@i2pn2.org>
 <v9abfu$2nabt$1@dont-email.me>
 <86c21e8a63450bf8b0c32f4f17ba0b503a914fe0@i2pn2.org>
 <v9d01i$39tbd$2@dont-email.me>
 <2c853efb65c3d8e2d4ba1c484f7002c74c68d895@i2pn2.org>
 <v9d1v8$3a9pe$1@dont-email.me>
 <e614d6b981fd5fa6eefc84894a14448d4663e3c7@i2pn2.org>
 <v9da2d$3bth4$1@dont-email.me>
 <64ddeeaa3a55a9e410de599bd8df53d3644ee5a3@i2pn2.org>
 <v9de0o$3cjse$1@dont-email.me> <v9dela$3cjse$2@dont-email.me>
 <b7c45ea22cb83908c31d909b67f4921156be52e3@i2pn2.org>
 <v9dgvl$3d1an$1@dont-email.me>
 <d289636b1d244acaf00108f46df093a9fd5aa27c@i2pn2.org>
 <v9dk2j$3dp9h$1@dont-email.me>
 <8318f5969aa3074e542747fe6ba2916d7f599bde@i2pn2.org>
 <TyKdnc3hCNvmUyf7nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <v9ekta$3necg$1@dont-email.me>
 <2f8c1b0943d03743fe9894937092bc2832e0a029@i2pn2.org>
 <v9fn50$3ta4u$2@dont-email.me>
 <d2309af812f88b94b2a64a422bf8240b54a0caae@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2024 22:43:28 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5789d119f15570941a39cdb59159ffa5";
	logging-data="78769"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+s3lf8IUMHrSfebHIR0j+j"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:cKWNNmcdYm70BMyhKJNIVOVSCe4=
In-Reply-To: <d2309af812f88b94b2a64a422bf8240b54a0caae@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3290

On 8/13/2024 3:38 PM, joes wrote:
> Am Tue, 13 Aug 2024 08:30:08 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>> HHH correctly predicts that a correct and unlimited emulation of DDD by
>> HHH cannot possibly reach its own "return" instruction final halt state.
> If let run, the HHH called by DDD will abort and return.
> 
>> H has never ever been required to do an unlimited emulation of a
>> non-halting input. H has only ever been required to correctly predict
>> what the behavior of a unlimited emulation would be.
> Which it doesn't fulfill.
> 

*I break this down into smaller steps here*

A simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH according to
the semantics of the x86 language is necessarily correct.

A correct simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH is
sufficient to correctly predict the behavior of an unlimited
simulation.

Termination analyzers / halt deciders are only required
to correctly predict the behavior of their inputs.

Termination analyzers / halt deciders are only required
to correctly predict the behavior of their inputs, thus
the behavior of non-inputs is outside of their domain.


-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer