| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v73926$mjis$17@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting V2 Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2024 08:43:34 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 55 Message-ID: <v73926$mjis$17@dont-email.me> References: <v6rg65$32o1o$3@dont-email.me> <v7085g$3j1h$1@dont-email.me> <v70ok7$61d8$10@dont-email.me> <v72lvl$k9t3$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2024 15:43:35 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="13997779445f04dacae82f025877e637"; logging-data="740956"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18IF8kJgzpcWS5VlMCrPgMx" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:+ex5lWVkv7u6DSu4YqdSheCyU54= In-Reply-To: <v72lvl$k9t3$1@dont-email.me> Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 3256 On 7/15/2024 3:17 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2024-07-14 14:50:47 +0000, olcott said: > >> On 7/14/2024 5:09 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 2024-07-12 14:56:05 +0000, olcott said: >>> >>>> We stipulate that the only measure of a correct emulation is the >>>> semantics of the x86 programming language. >>>> >>>> _DDD() >>>> [00002163] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping >>>> [00002164] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping >>>> [00002166] 6863210000 push 00002163 ; push DDD >>>> [0000216b] e853f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DDD) >>>> [00002170] 83c404 add esp,+04 >>>> [00002173] 5d pop ebp >>>> [00002174] c3 ret >>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002174] >>>> >>>> When N steps of DDD are emulated by HHH according to the >>>> semantics of the x86 language then N steps are emulated correctly. >>>> >>>> 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 running. >>>> >>>> The above specifies the infinite set of every HHH/DDD pair >>>> where 1 to infinity steps of DDD are correctly emulated by HHH. >>> >>> You should use the indices here, too, e.g., "where 1 to infinity >>> steps of >>> DDD₁ are correctly emulated by HHH₃" or whatever you mean. >>> >> >> DDD is the exact same fixed constant finite string that >> always calls HHH at the same fixed constant machine >> address. > > If the function called by DDD is not part of the input then the input does > not specify a behaviour and the question whether DDD halts is ill-posed. > We don't care about whether HHH halts. We know that HHH halts or fails to meet its design spec. We are only seeing if DDD correctly emulated by HHH can can possibly reach its own final state. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer