Re: HHH(DD) does correctly reject its input as non-halting --- VERIFIED FACT

On 6/13/2025 5:20 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-06-12 15:34:01 +0000, olcott said:
 

int DD()
{
   int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}
>
It is a verified fact that DD() *is* one of the forms
of the counter-example input as such an input would
be encoded in C. Christopher Strachey wrote his in CPL.
>
// rec routine P
//   §L :if T[P] go to L
//     Return §
// https://academic.oup.com/comjnl/article/7/4/313/354243
void Strachey_P()
{
   L: if (HHH(Strachey_P)) goto L;
   return;
}
>
https://academic.oup.com/comjnl/article-abstract/7/4/313/354243? redirectedFrom=fulltext
>
It *is* a verified fact DD correctly simulated by HHH cannot
possibly reach its own "return" statement final halt state
because the input to HHH(DD) specifies recursive simulation.

 False. It is not the reursive simulation that prevents the reaching
the simulation of the "return" statement. Instead, previention is
a consequence of the discontinuation of the simulation that the
input specifies.

When you try to prove this by providing ALL of the
details you will find that you are incorrect. Dogmatic
assertions utterly bereft of any supporting reasoning
do not count as rebuttals.

The input also specifies that the final "return"
statement is executed after the discontination of the simulation.
At this point HHH is not faithful to the specification.
 

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
_DDD()
[00002192] 55             push ebp
[00002193] 8bec           mov ebp,esp
[00002195] 6892210000     push 00002192
[0000219a] e833f4ffff     call 000015d2  // call HHH
[0000219f] 83c404         add esp,+04
[000021a2] 5d             pop ebp
[000021a3] c3             ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [000021a3]
How does DDD correctly emulated by HHH reach its
own "ret" instruction final halt state?
It is an easily verified fact that zero to
infinity instructions of DDD correctly emulated
by HHH cannot possibly reach their own "ret"
instruction final halt state.
In incorrect emulation could do this. As soon
as HHH "interprets" "call 000015d2" as jmp 000021a3
DDD incorrectly emulated by HHH reaches its own "ret"
instruction final halt state.
That you only have dogmatic assertions utterly bereft
of any supporting reasoning proves that what you are
calling knowledge is merely presumption.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer