Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DDD specifies recursive emulation to HHH and halting to HHH1 ---
 STA
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2025 22:09:34 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <c4a0ce25028dd0495dd907463afb0964efba8d9f@i2pn2.org>
References: <vrfuob$256og$1@dont-email.me> <vs9gcg$20g2j$3@dont-email.me>
 <vs9h9o$23cav$2@dont-email.me> <vs9hh3$20g2j$6@dont-email.me>
 <vs9jie$23cav$4@dont-email.me> <vs9kb1$26cg5$2@dont-email.me>
 <vs9pni$27rl4$9@dont-email.me> <vs9r1b$28tqg$2@dont-email.me>
 <vs9t45$2f6n5$1@dont-email.me>
 <9f2ff3ab9b99a7bb6dfa0885f9757f810ce52e66@i2pn2.org>
 <vsaam4$2sfhq$1@dont-email.me> <vsbi7e$1hblk$1@dont-email.me>
 <vsc6qi$27lbo$2@dont-email.me>
 <8a3e7e93e6cad20b29d23405a0e6dbd497a492ac@i2pn2.org>
 <vscegq$2fv3s$2@dont-email.me>
 <26f33bb039fda7d28ae164cfc4d0f582d4698f31@i2pn2.org>
 <vsclsb$2n4jc$1@dont-email.me>
 <36a4c76730b23cf78ddde73c723116b5380973a1@i2pn2.org>
 <vsctnm$2ub5m$2@dont-email.me>
 <4285ea3219a2d5f2d6c52e84697fa4e3d3dc80cb@i2pn2.org>
 <vsd18m$379dn$1@dont-email.me> <vsdjff$3o5ff$1@dont-email.me>
 <vsem50$th5g$3@dont-email.me> <vsepbh$11dqg$1@dont-email.me>
 <vsf1b2$1a4fc$1@dont-email.me>
 <038ec0393503335f3bb71d4291c06e0133fc68f9@i2pn2.org>
 <vsjmks$26s7s$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2025 02:27:18 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2894062"; 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: <vsjmks$26s7s$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3923
Lines: 52

On 4/2/25 11:55 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/2/2025 9:14 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Mon, 31 Mar 2025 16:26:58 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 3/31/2025 2:10 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 31.mrt.2025 om 20:16 schreef olcott:
>>
>>>>> A simulating termination analyzer is always correct to abort the
>>>>> simulation and reject the input as non-halting when-so-ever this input
>>>>> would otherwise prevent itself from halting.
>>>>>
>>>> But the input is halting, as proven by direct execution.
>>>
>>> Something other than the input is halting.
>>> HHH1(DDD) shows the same behavior as the direct execution.
>>>    HHH(DDD) shows the behavior of the actual input.
>> Why are you not passing DDD as input? Why do you not call what you're
>> doing HHH(HHH(DDD))? What is the difference in what is passed to HHH1?
>>
> 
> This seems to be above your level of technical competence.
> 
> _DDD()
> [00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
> [00002173] 8bec       mov  ebp,esp  ; housekeeping
> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
> [0000217f] 83c404     add  esp,+04
> [00002182] 5d         pop  ebp
> [00002183] c3         ret
> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]

Which isn't a full description of the program DDD, and thus not a valid 
description for a behavior decider.

> 
> Anyone understanding the above code where HHH
> emulates DDD according to the semantics of the
> x86 language knows that this DDD (not some
> other different DDD) cannot possibly reach its
> own final halt state.

Except your HHH doesn't do that, as it stops its emulation short.

> 
> Maybe the whole problem is that everyone here
> including Mike never had an actual clue about
> the x86 language.
> 

No, it seems you are just a pathological liar that doesn't know the 
meaning of the words he uses.

Sorry, you are just proving you are just a stupid liar.