Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- PROOF THAT I AM CORRECT

On 6/22/2025 6:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/21/25 5:28 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/21/2025 3:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/21/25 11:38 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/20/2025 7:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/20/25 1:09 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/20/2025 10:27 AM, joes wrote:

Am Fri, 20 Jun 2025 09:53:41 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 6/20/2025 4:42 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 19.jun.2025 om 17:23 schreef olcott:

On 6/19/2025 3:55 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 18.jun.2025 om 17:41 schreef olcott:

On 6/18/2025 4:36 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 17.jun.2025 om 16:36 schreef olcott:

>

Indeed, HHH fails to reach the end of the simulation, even though
the end is only one cycle further from the point where it gave up
the simulation.
>

That is counter-factual and over-your-head.

It was an agreement.
>

No evidence presented for this claim. Dreaming again?
Even a beginner understands that when HHH has code to abort and halt,
the simulated HHH runs one cycle behind the simulating HHH, so that
when the simulating HHH aborts, the simulated HHH is only one cycle
away from the same point.

>
Proving that you do not understand what unreachable code is.

>
Even a beginner understands that when HHH has code to abort and halt,
the simulated HHH runs one cycle behind the simulating HHH, so that
when the simulating HHH aborts, the simulated HHH is only one cycle
away from the same point.

Yes this is factual.

Lol, that was the same paragraph.
>

Every simulated HHH remains one cycle behind its simulator no matter how
deep the recursive simulations go. This means that the outermost
directly executed HHH reaches its abort criteria first.

Yes, no simulator can proceed past a call to itself.
>

>
That is counter-factual and it you knew c well
enough you could verify that is counter-factual.
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c

>
Which shows that HHH never correctly simulates its input, as it always will abort its simulation, and a partial simulation is never a correct simulation by the term-of-art definition.
>

>
HHH emulates N x86 machine language instructions of
DDD according to the semantics of the x86 language,
thus necessarily emulates these N instructions correctly.
This also requires HHH to emulate itself emulating DDD
at least once.

>
Which isn't the definition of "Correct Emulation",

*It is the definition of a correct emulation of N instructions*
That you believe that a correct emulation is a complete emulation
of a non terminating input is self-contradictory. Even my close
friend with a 73 IQ knows that contradiction proves falsity.
>

  Which isn't the correct simulation of the input.
 

A correct simulation of N instructions is
A correct simulation of N instructions
in the same way that 1 == 1.
ChatGPT itself recognizes the repeating pattern
shown in N steps of DD correctly simulated by HHH.
I never have been able to understand how refusing
to acknowledge this was anything other than dishonesty.
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
Anyone that knows what infinite recursion is should
be able to immediately see that DDD correctly simulated
by HHH cannot possibly reach its own "return" statement
final halt state.

Sorry, you are just admitting to using a strawman, and believing your own lies.
 What is contradictory of my definition? it just means that the correct simulation of a non-halting input is also non-halting and doesn't finish in finite number of steps.
 Your definitions says that for ANY input (except maybe one that immediately stops) there exists a correct simulation of N steps that shows that it is non-halting.
 Your problem is that either you input isn't emualtable past the call instruction as it doesn't contain that data, or every DDD is just a different input (even though the code for the FUNCTION DDD doesn't change, the code for the PROGRAM/INPUT DDD does) and thus your "every N" doesn't apply to any one input.
 Sorry, you are just proving how much your "logic" is built on lying about thing, and how little you understand of the actual meaning of the terms you are using.

--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer