Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as
 non-halting.
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2024 08:08:59 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <ce0a250902cd90698367e11a5900e68f6163eec3@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>
	<ea8aa365d662f11cf1ae48d59cf9b7dd95d8edc8@i2pn2.org>
	<v6oscm$2fuva$12@dont-email.me>
	<f971e4043ec8a046697fad1f226221516ba7c13e@i2pn2.org>
	<v6pgt9$2kc07$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2024 08:08:59 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3002436"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 2665
Lines: 34

Am Thu, 11 Jul 2024 15:56:09 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 7/11/2024 3:19 PM, joes wrote:
>> Am Thu, 11 Jul 2024 10:05:58 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 7/11/2024 9:25 AM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Thu, 11 Jul 2024 09:10:24 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> 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:

>>>>> 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.
>>>> If the recursive call to HHH from DDD halts, the outer HHH doesn't
>>>> need to abort.
>> Do you mean that HHH doesn't halt?
This.

>>>> DDD depends totally on HHH; it halts exactly when HHH does.
>>>> Which it does, because it aborts.
>> What does HHH do after it aborts?
And this one.

>>> DDD correctly simulated by HHH has provably different behavior than
>>> DDD correctly simulated by HHH1.
>> Which means that HHH is not doing the simulation correctly.
> When HHH simulates DDD according to the semantics of the x86 language
> then HHH is simulating correctly. When people disagree with the
> semantics of the x86 language THEY ARE WRONG !!!
Aborting is not a correct simulation.
Please answer the other questions above.

-- 
Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 16:52:17 -0500 schrieb olcott:
Objectively I am a genius.