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 emulated by HHH --- (does not refer to prior posts)
Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2024 06:52:28 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <dd2d8639d9de574437b669ab196ca6a7a7db7765@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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2024 06:52:28 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="444284"; 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: 3977
Lines: 47

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.

-- 
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.