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: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- never
 reaches its halt state
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2024 09:58:34 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 56
Message-ID: <v95aqr$p5rb$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v8jh7m$30k55$1@dont-email.me> <v8kp6s$3c5h2$2@dont-email.me>
 <v8ld1f$3f6vr$5@dont-email.me> <v8n9vm$3ume2$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8nsmt$1n09$5@dont-email.me> <v8q05j$ik30$1@dont-email.me>
 <c-WdnSXh_5bNdC37nZ2dnZfqlJwAAAAA@giganews.com>
 <v8v7fs$29ovd$1@dont-email.me> <v8vtle$32fso$13@dont-email.me>
 <v91ttk$3r3ua$1@dont-email.me> <v933nc$5r7u$3@dont-email.me>
 <v94n52$lpmp$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2024 16:58:35 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="bb86fb6b7518b299c8da34bf84593b17";
	logging-data="825195"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+7xla6Zsce3hZSFSSZJt65"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:2/C3mixWcReQvfLxpXHtpGTVxCA=
In-Reply-To: <v94n52$lpmp$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3379

On 8/9/2024 4:22 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-08-08 18:45:00 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>>
>> x86 machine code is a 100% exact and concrete specification.
> 
> But has too many unimportant details.
> 

*After we get agreement on this*
(a) The "return" instruction is the halt state of DDD.
(b) DDD correctly emulated by any HHH never reaches this state.

Then we move on to the last step we I prove how important
a 100% concrete specification is.

>> C is a little more vague and hides the details.
> 
> With C it is possible to write unambigous programs. It is not
> as easy as with many other languages because C is usually
> used for purposes where implementation dependnet behaviour
> need not be avoided.
> 
>> typedef void (*ptr)();
>> int HHH(ptr P); // simulating termination analyzer
>>
>> void DDD()
>> {
>>    HHH(DDD);
>>    return;
>> }
>>
>> Each HHH of every HHH that can possibly exist definitely
>> emulates zero to infinity instructions of DDD correctly.
>> Every expert in the C language sees that this emulated DDD
>> cannot possibly reaches its own "return" instruction halt state.
>>
>> Every rebuttal that anyone can possibly make is necessarily
>> erroneous because the above paragraph is a tautology.
>>
>> HHH computes the mapping from its finite string of x86 machine
>> code to the actual behavior that this finite string specifies
>> which includes recursive emulation.
> 
> It is not useful to repeat what has already been said. You should
> always improve, at least the presentation. If you cant find any
> other improvemnt you should at least correct the worst typo.
> 

*Until we get agreement on this I am not talking about anything else*
(a) The "return" instruction is the halt state of DDD.
(b) DDD correctly emulated by any HHH never reaches this state.

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