Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as
 non-halting.
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2024 19:45:11 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <f86030509497ce35195772f054007a5476e690df@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>
 <c20a4e68a6b3a42ca546c974dd0047ee6628e275@i2pn2.org>
 <v6v0v7$3pmjn$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2024 23:45:11 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3137773"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v6v0v7$3pmjn$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3361
Lines: 47

On 7/13/24 7:00 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/13/2024 5:57 PM, joes wrote:
>> Am Fri, 12 Jul 2024 08:20:53 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> 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.
>> The assembly is not concerned with aborting or halting.
>>
>>>>> When DDD is correctly emulated by HHH1 according to the semantics of
>>>>> the x86 programming language HHH1 need not abort its emulation of DDD
>>>>> because HHH has already done this.
>>>> However, the program DDD is the same in both cases and therefore the
>>>> its behavioral meaning per x86 semantics is also the same.
>>> HHH1(DDD) only halts because HHH(DDD) aborts its emulation thus proving
>>> the the behaviors are different.
>> The simple fact remains that if the behaviour of a program depends
>> on what is simulating it, that simulator is faulty.
>>
>>>>> The behavior of DDD emulated by HHH1 is identical to the behavior of
>>>>> the directly executed DDD().
>>>> Which is the behaviour of DDD accordint to the semantics of x86
>>>> language.
>>> If you stupidly ignore that DDD does call HHH in recursive emulation it
>>> might superfically seem that way.
> 
>> It does that in every (non-)simulation, no change there.
>>
> 
> 
> DDD cannot call HHH in recursive emulation WITHOUT EMULATION.
> 

But, since HHH does conditional emulation, if HHH will abort its 
emulation it is not infinite recursive emulation.

If HHH can not handle emulating programs that call versions of it, then 
it is just defective or incomplete.