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 correctly emulated by HHH is INcorrectly rejected as
 non-halting.
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2024 09:15:39 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <cd06ac664dce3d060dfba5b33fe5ec42ef519d90@i2pn2.org>
References: <v6m7si$1uq86$2@dont-email.me> <v6mhc7$20hbo$2@dont-email.me>
 <v6mhr3$20kkr$2@dont-email.me> <v6nts5$2be3m$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6op4h$2fuva$4@dont-email.me> <v6qo1d$2ugov$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6rajl$30qtt$7@dont-email.me> <v6tc75$3gidj$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6tri1$3imib$9@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2024 13:15:39 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3137774"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v6tri1$3imib$9@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 3278
Lines: 67

On 7/13/24 8:22 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/13/2024 3:00 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-07-12 13:20:53 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 7/12/2024 3:03 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-07-11 14:10:24 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 7/11/2024 1:25 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-07-10 17:53:38 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 7/10/2024 12:45 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>> Op 10.jul.2024 om 17:03 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>> typedef void (*ptr)();
>>>>>>>>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Unneeded complexity. It is equivalent to:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>        int main()
>>>>>>>>        {
>>>>>>>>          return HHH(main);
>>>>>>>>        }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Every time any HHH correctly emulates DDD it calls the
>>>>>>> x86utm operating system to create a separate process
>>>>>>> context with its own memory virtual registers and stack,
>>>>>>> thus each recursively emulated DDD is a different instance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, each of those instances has the same sequence of 
>>>>>> instructions
>>>>>> that the x86 language specifies the same operational meaning.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *That is counter-factual*
>>>>> When DDD is correctly emulated by HHH according to the
>>>>> semantics of the x86 programming language HHH must abort
>>>>> its emulation of DDD or both HHH and DDD never halt.
>>>>
>>>> There is not "must" anywhere in the semantics of the programming 
>>>> language.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The semantics of the language specifies the behavior of
>>> the machine code thus deriving the must.
>>
>> How can one derive "must" from the semantics of the machine code?
>>
> 
> Deciders are required to (thus must) halt.
> 

And must give the RIGHT answer to the question they are defined to be 
deciding.

Sometimes, you can't do both, and that makes that question uncomputable.

Like Halting turns out to be.