Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DDD specifies recursive emulation to HHH and halting to HHH1
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2025 21:26:20 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 74
Message-ID: <vu8qgt$vn9b$3@dont-email.me>
References: <vrfuob$256og$1@dont-email.me> <vs9g5p$1v2n9$5@dont-email.me>
 <vs9gcg$20g2j$3@dont-email.me> <vs9h9o$23cav$2@dont-email.me>
 <vs9hh3$20g2j$6@dont-email.me> <vs9jie$23cav$4@dont-email.me>
 <vs9kb1$26cg5$2@dont-email.me> <vs9pni$27rl4$9@dont-email.me>
 <3ade9e84224ba9b99c7363e0e9b69181804b7daa@i2pn2.org>
 <vsc2fd$1vihj$2@dont-email.me>
 <e1da7d564873d36f88e119fbbbdafd8c6b0f675e@i2pn2.org>
 <vsc9o7$2bk3d$2@dont-email.me> <vsdkq5$3rdgv$1@dont-email.me>
 <vselj9$th5g$1@dont-email.me> <vsg0tj$2e09c$1@dont-email.me>
 <vsht0a$90ss$4@dont-email.me> <vsiurv$1estf$1@dont-email.me>
 <vskqim$378kj$7@dont-email.me> <vsla1h$1kf$1@dont-email.me>
 <vsn08o$1ltd2$5@dont-email.me>
 <b748de0dbba6d397f790f7112fbaf891a9550e30@i2pn2.org>
 <vth4pr$3in23$7@dont-email.me>
 <ee7f2cd7fb674e3a212e7f98514a82aee3a1141b@i2pn2.org>
 <vtk70r$2d98m$1@dont-email.me>
 <7d3fb4c3b3ef4773a1e411e3f44d9251581ac403@i2pn2.org>
 <vu87rj$nqg7$1@dont-email.me> <vu8c8c$r86g$1@dont-email.me>
 <vu8nvm$13jl5$6@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2025 21:26:21 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="221625c8ee30a140870d84331232caab";
	logging-data="1039659"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+rb1LXncILMbJI8tQ5Bfqf"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:suRF2PGR5aNt835qIVSRElDDSjc=
In-Reply-To: <vu8nvm$13jl5$6@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: nl, en-GB

Op 22.apr.2025 om 20:43 schreef olcott:
> On 4/22/2025 10:22 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 22.apr.2025 om 16:07 schreef olcott:
>>> On 4/22/2025 7:40 AM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Mon, 14 Apr 2025 18:50:52 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> On 4/14/2025 4:32 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>> Am Sun, 13 Apr 2025 14:54:35 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>> On 4/13/2025 9:46 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>> Am Thu, 03 Apr 2025 16:57:43 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2025 1:32 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-04-03 02:08:22 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is a truism that a correct x86 emulator would emulate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself emulating DDD whenever DDD calls this emulator with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself.
>>>>>>>>>> Which does not agree or disagree with my comment nor say anything
>>>>>>>>>> about it,
>>>>>>>>>> and it doesn't clarify any aspect of your statement that i
>>>>>>>>>> commented.
>>>>>>>>>> If there is any indirect connection to anything relevant that
>>>>>>>>>> connection is not presented, leaving your response unconnected 
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> therefore irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>>> So you did not reply to the immediated context.
>>>>>>>>> THE FACT THAT DDD EMULATED BY HHH DOES NOT HALT IS NOT RELEVANT 
>>>>>>>>> TO A
>>>>>>>>> CORRECT DECISION BY A HALT DECIDER?
>>>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>> To clarify: that *HHH* does not simulate DDD halting has no 
>>>>>> bearing on
>>>>>> its direct execution.
>>>>> THE DIRECT EXECUTION IS NOT WHAT IT SEES THUS FORBIDDING IT FROM
>>>>> REPORTING ON THE DIRECT EXECUTION.
>>>> It sure ought to see the same thing the directly executing processor 
>>>> does.
>>>>
>>>
>>> HHH cannot possibly see what HHH1.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, the programmer made HHH such that it cannot see the behaviour.
> 
> typedef void (*ptr)();
> int HHH(ptr P);
> int HHH1(ptr P);
> 
> int DD()
> {
>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>    if (Halt_Status)
>      HERE: goto HERE;
>    return Halt_Status;
> }
> 
> int main()
> {
>    HHH1(DD);
> }
> 
> It is stupid to think that HHH can see anything
> that it caller does.

It is stupid to think that when HHH is made blind for some facts by the 
programmer, that these facts are not true.

> 
>> This failure of HHH does not say anything about the behaviour 
>> specified by the input. According to the semantics of the x86 
>> language, this input specifies a halting program, as proven by direct 
>> execution and world- class simulators. That HHH is unable to reach the 
>> end of this halting program, does not change the semantics of the x86 
>> language.
> 
>