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 V2
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2024 17:18:35 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <e9c73a7efa3e1ac218379bf0ef742ea8c4af2313@i2pn2.org>
References: <v6rg65$32o1o$3@dont-email.me> <v6sdlu$382g0$1@dont-email.me>
	<v6td3a$3ge79$1@dont-email.me> <v6tp1j$3imib$2@dont-email.me>
	<v6trdu$3irhh$1@dont-email.me> <v6tu01$3imib$11@dont-email.me>
	<a177dd76613794d6bb877c65ffe6c587a8f31bc1@i2pn2.org>
	<v6tvpv$3imib$14@dont-email.me>
	<091e8b7baeea467ee894b1c79c8943cb9773adb7@i2pn2.org>
	<v6u346$3khl8$1@dont-email.me>
	<16ac79611a441e7e01119631051f69119eee958a@i2pn2.org>
	<v6v06i$3pivt$1@dont-email.me>
	<23cb2d2401b87bf4f6a604aa1a78b93ffc9a29bc@i2pn2.org>
	<v6v2t1$3pmjn$3@dont-email.me>
	<3fc6548531f91ed14a27420caf9679a634573ed0@i2pn2.org>
	<v70lmo$61d8$1@dont-email.me>
	<8a6e6d9ff49aabe2525ce5729a439c807de4768a@i2pn2.org>
	<v71qj3$bvm2$2@dont-email.me>
	<3d124d535f6d59565df213fa58242ee156ee96bb@i2pn2.org>
	<v7349r$mjis$1@dont-email.me> <v756vv$15rrp$1@dont-email.me>
	<v7658i$1b4io$1@dont-email.me> <v77pf4$1nn5l$1@dont-email.me>
	<v78fd7$1rc43$3@dont-email.me> <v78hbf$1rnr3$2@dont-email.me>
	<v78hp8$1rc43$11@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2024 17:18:35 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3619015"; 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: 3272
Lines: 33

Am Wed, 17 Jul 2024 08:43:04 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 7/17/2024 8:35 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 17.jul.2024 om 15:02 schreef olcott:
>>> On 7/17/2024 1:48 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-07-16 15:57:04 +0000, olcott said:

>>>>>> The trace does not show that HHH returns so there is no basis to
>>>>>> think that HHH is a decider.
>>>>> The trace shows the data of the executed program of HHH that does
>>>>> halt.
>>>> It shows some of the data, not all, and in particular, not the
>>>> halting.
>>> DDD emulated by HHH according to the semantic meaning of its x86
>>> instructions never stop running unless aborted.
Bla bla.
>> You have shown that you do not understand the semantics of the x86
>> language.
>> HHH does abort and halt after N cycles,
> That is counter-factual
Then HHH is not a decider.

> When we examine the infinite set of every HHH/DDD pair such that:
> HHH1  One step of DDD is correctly emulated by HHH HHH2  Two steps of
> DDD are correctly emulated by HHH HHH3  Three steps of DDD are correctly
> emulated by HHH ...
> HHH∞  The emulation of DDD by HHH never stops
> 
> DDD emulated by any pure function HHH according to the semantic meaning
> of its x86 instructions never stops running unless aborted.
DDD only calls HHH, which, being a decider, halts.

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