Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!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: Mon, 15 Jul 2024 00:21:33 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <e5596464c2f349c4470b4ee54cb8324a3c7ed152@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> <v702t1$2lgb$1@dont-email.me>
	<v70mel$61d8$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2024 00:21:33 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3279088"; 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: 3219
Lines: 39

Am Sun, 14 Jul 2024 09:13:41 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 7/14/2024 3:40 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-07-13 12:22:24 +0000, olcott said:
>>> 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:

>>>>>>>> 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.
>> The semantics of the x86 language does not require that, nor that any
>> of the programs is a decider.
> The subject our our conversion is a simulating termination analyzer AKA
> partial halt decider that accepts a finite string of x86 code as
> specifying halting behavior or rejects this finite string. Deciders are
> required to halt thus must abort the emulation of any input that would
> prevent this.
> Any input that must be aborted to prevent the non termination of HHH
> necessarily specifies non-halting behavior or it would never need to be
> aborted.
DDD nor HHH however are non-halting inputs and do not need to be aborted.

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