Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DDD emulated by HHH --- (does not refer to prior posts)
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2024 11:12:03 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <4be2f31ff77264968ac77e253fe756bf018a3592@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>
 <98cab2236f5cf14547da155651a24f9561e2b076@i2pn2.org>
 <vavqot$14dkv$1@dont-email.me>
 <dd2d8639d9de574437b669ab196ca6a7a7db7765@i2pn2.org>
 <vb4ds2$2rs5t$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2024 15:12:03 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="602294"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <vb4ds2$2rs5t$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4810
Lines: 65

On 9/2/24 9:16 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 9/1/2024 1:52 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Sat, 31 Aug 2024 14:26:21 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 8/31/2024 1:49 PM, joes wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>> The x86utm operating system correctly emulates 100 million instructions
>>> of DDD emulated by HHH with abort turned off.
> 
>> And after those 100 million it still hasn’t returned.
>>
> 
> An HHH that does not abort thus never halts thus
> conclusively proving that HHH must abort or never halts.
> 

But that isn't the question.

THe question is does the DDD that HHH is emulating halt when correctly 
emulated without aborting the emulation.

Your problem is you assume you can change the code of the HHH that is 
being called, but that just shows you don't know the meaning of a PROGRAM.

Since this HHH doesn't *DO* the appropriate emulation, you must give the 
input to another emulator that does it, not change the input by changing 
this HHH.

YOu are just proving that your fundamental nature is to attempt to LIE.