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: Hypothetical possibilities --- Correct emulation has been proven
 for three years
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2024 06:28:16 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 45
Message-ID: <v8frgh$24rl1$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v7gl30$3j9fi$1@dont-email.me> <v7led6$kacj$1@dont-email.me>
 <v7lsg5$luh0$5@dont-email.me> <v7nm9m$1433k$1@dont-email.me>
 <v7ofe7$17h8r$6@dont-email.me> <v7qfu0$1m6vf$1@dont-email.me>
 <v7r040$1onhe$3@dont-email.me> <v7vlbj$2ofet$1@dont-email.me>
 <v80a2u$2rabc$4@dont-email.me> <v825jo$39i9l$1@dont-email.me>
 <v82u9d$3dftr$3@dont-email.me> <v8306v$3c7$1@news.muc.de>
 <v83161$3dftr$11@dont-email.me> <v84udt$3rp4t$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8bc6j$159av$1@dont-email.me>
 <ea673a5b4ed43fbddf938c69bd013b0cf2ca325d@i2pn2.org>
 <v8c6kb$1de3l$1@dont-email.me>
 <9f3112e056ad6eebf35f940c34b802b46addcad4@i2pn2.org>
 <v8cde0$1ecgo$1@dont-email.me> <v8ctgt$1gbu7$4@dont-email.me>
 <v8dkc3$1kii7$3@dont-email.me> <v8e55v$1nrnh$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8e9vu$1oqd7$1@dont-email.me>
 <4a0d6c844899ab1354b5f5013e3e8342aa2efb9f@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2024 13:28:17 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3121e7e48560b53e45601f59b50fa691";
	logging-data="2256545"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19cC/vnLJQo0gCKhkAGlsMu"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:cGK9DKQ5Ou/pLCQQjUdKSkWJu9Q=
In-Reply-To: <4a0d6c844899ab1354b5f5013e3e8342aa2efb9f@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3411

On 8/1/2024 2:20 AM, joes wrote:
> Am Wed, 31 Jul 2024 16:23:09 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>> On 7/31/2024 3:01 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 31.jul.2024 om 17:14 schreef olcott:
>>>> On 7/31/2024 3:44 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>> Op 31.jul.2024 om 06:09 schreef olcott:
> 
>>>>>> We don't show any of HHH and show the execution trace of of just DDD
>>>>>> assuming that HHH is an x86 emulator.
>>>>> This assumption is incorrect if it means that HHH is an unconditional
>>>>> simulator that does not abort.
>>>> This algorithm is used by all the simulating termination analyzers:
> 
>>> So, Sipser only agreed to a correct simulation, not with an incorrect
>>> simulation that violates the semantics of the x86 language by skipping
>>> the last few instructions of a halting program.
>>>
>> int DD()
>> {
>>     int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>     if (Halt_Status)
>>       HERE: goto HERE;
>>     return Halt_Status;
>> }
>> int main()
>> {
>>     HHH(DD);
>> }
>> DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own second line.
> If HHH can't simulate itself, it is not a decider.
> 

So we are back to your lack of software engineering skill.
You cannot see that the second instruction of DD correctly*
emulated by HHH cannot possibly be reached by DD. This
remains true no matter how many levels that HHH emulates
itself emulating DD.

*According to the x86 semantics of DD and HHH


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