Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: joes Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: DDD emulated by HHH --- (does not refer to prior posts) Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2024 06:52:28 -0000 (UTC) Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: References: <98cab2236f5cf14547da155651a24f9561e2b076@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2024 06:52:28 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="444284"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM"; User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a git.gnome.org/pan2) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Bytes: 3977 Lines: 47 Am Sat, 31 Aug 2024 14:26:21 -0500 schrieb olcott: > On 8/31/2024 1:49 PM, joes wrote: >> Am Sat, 31 Aug 2024 10:19:28 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>> On 8/31/2024 9:59 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>> Op 31.aug.2024 om 14:03 schreef olcott: >>>>> On 8/31/2024 4:07 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>> Op 30.aug.2024 om 16:58 schreef olcott: >>>>>>> On 8/30/2024 9:56 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>> Am Thu, 29 Aug 2024 09:07:39 -0500 schrieb olcott: >> >>>>>>>>> HHH correctly predicts what the behavior of DDD would be if this >>>>>>>>> HHH never aborted its emulation of DDD. >>>>>>>> Problem is, DDD is then not calling itself, but the non-input of >>>>>>>> a not-aborting HHH. >>>>>>> *This is before any aborting occurs* >>>>>> Here is your problem. The code of the program and its meaning >>>>>> according to the semantics of the x86 language, does not suddenly >>>>>> change when the aborting occurs. >> ^ important >>>>> You cannot possibly say one damn thing about the behavior of DDD >>>>> until you first understand that a world class x86 emulator that HHH >>>>> calls does enable HHH to correctly emulate itself emulating DDD and >>>>> the following execution trace proves this. >>>> And when this unmodified world class x86 simulator was given olcott's >>>> DDD based on the aborting HHH as input, it showed that this has >>>> halting behaviour. >>>> THIS IS A VERIFIED FACT! Even olcott has verified it. >>>> This correct simulation by the unmodified world class simulator tells >>>> us that the program has a halting behaviour. >>>> Your *modification* of the simulator stops the simulation before it >>>> can see the halting behaviour and decides that the input is >>>> non-halting. We know which one is correct: the unmodified world class >>>> simulator, not the *modified* one, which aborts one cycle too soon.. >> >>>> Still dreaming of the HHH that does an infinite recursion? >>> Before we can proceed to the next step you must first agree that the >>> second emulation of DDD by the emulated HHH is proven to be correct on >>> the basis that it does emulate the first four instructions of DDD. >> The fourth instruction (the call) encompasses quite a few further >> instructions, which must all(!) be simulated until it returns. Only >> then is it finished. > The x86utm operating system correctly emulates 100 million instructions > of DDD emulated by HHH with abort turned off. And after those 100 million it still hasn’t returned. -- Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math: It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.