Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-4.nntp.ord.giganews.com!nntp.brightview.co.uk!news.brightview.co.uk.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2024 15:07:43 +0000
Subject: Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v9gv4k$4sc4$1@dont-email.me>
 <561f876601b0329c0260bac26f8b6dfb6e28647f@i2pn2.org>
 <v9h5af$9jn6$1@dont-email.me>
 <bdfcf881b9a9ce7e2bc197339d14a01beae1116d@i2pn2.org>
From: Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2024 16:07:43 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Firefox/91.0 SeaMonkey/2.53.17
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <bdfcf881b9a9ce7e2bc197339d14a01beae1116d@i2pn2.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <XYucnXqdgeWiVSH7nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
Lines: 38
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-i3vppJ8wKyBBLBcy6FaIFaoav5gEbtXYQOCKHiJypJoCgts0UKBOehkNEur/9NyoUOC5xc+ZerS6KtA!ZFcINKe3/6O2KrpmsnTPFKysqLGZ1bX37xcg8xljfnNjtAjAsUcxAU5mhWjQ8AK6VpwEAgTBbxio!pyMUrW017K6i8+oJYYjmjrIsoeE=
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 2863

On 14/08/2024 08:43, joes wrote:
> Am Tue, 13 Aug 2024 21:38:07 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>> On 8/13/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 8/13/24 8:52 PM, olcott wrote:
> 
>>>> A simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH according to the
>>>> semantics of the x86 language is necessarily correct.
>>> Nope, it is just the correct PARTIAL emulation of the first N
>>> instructions of DDD, and not of all of DDD,
>> That is what I said dufuss.
> You were trying to label an incomplete/partial/aborted simulation
> as correct.
> 
>>>> A correct simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH is sufficient to
>>>> correctly predict the behavior of an unlimited simulation.
>>> Nope, if a HHH returns to its caller,
>> *Try to show exactly how DDD emulated by HHH returns to its caller*
> how *HHH* returns
> 
>> (the first one doesn't even have a caller)
>> Use the above machine language instructions to show this.
> HHH simulates DDD	enter the matrix
>    DDD calls HHH(DDD)	Fred: could be eliminated
>    HHH simulates DDD	second level
>      DDD calls HHH(DDD)	recursion detected
>    HHH aborts, returns	outside interference
>    DDD halts		voila
> HHH halts

You're misunderstanding the scenario?  If your simulated HHH aborts its simulation [line 5 above], 
then the outer level H would have aborted its identical simulation earlier.  You know that, right? 
[It's what people have been discussing here endlessly for the last few months! :) ]

So your trace is impossible...


Mike.