Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as
 non-halting.
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2024 07:34:59 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <v6r7tj$30qtt$4@dont-email.me>
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>
 <ce0a250902cd90698367e11a5900e68f6163eec3@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2024 14:34:59 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a53340e46817c86b736359d5ee28d54a";
	logging-data="3173309"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX183Yy9USTFB5ArcQPPILWle"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:kjwAbCmbSpNB/mcjXzeuQBOANeM=
In-Reply-To: <ce0a250902cd90698367e11a5900e68f6163eec3@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3100

On 7/12/2024 3:08 AM, joes wrote:
> 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.
> 

Aborting is what a simulating termination analyzer must
do for any input that cannot possibly otherwise stop running.

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer