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

On 6/29/2025 5:43 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 28.jun.2025 om 14:42 schreef olcott:

On 6/28/2025 3:47 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 27.jun.2025 om 16:26 schreef olcott:

On 6/27/2025 1:42 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-06-27 04:21:01 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 6/26/2025 5:20 AM, Mikko wrote:>>>

In computer science the only measure of non-halting is the
possibility to execute an unlimited number of steps without
halting. An execution of a limited number of steps does not
count as non-haltign.

>
Halting means reaching a final halt state.

>
And non-halting means unlimited execution.
>

>
Not at all. The measure has always been can't possibly reach
final halt state. If it was not that way then smashing a
computer with a sledge hammer would "prove" that an infinite
loop halts.

>

Not at all. The measure is unlimited execution.

>
counter-factual
>
*can't possibly reach final halt state*
even if correctly simulated forever gets
rid of the psychotic requirement to actually
simulate it forever before we know that it
does not halt.

 Counter factual. Only in your dreams.
 A correct simulation of exactly the same input by world-class simulators show that this input specifies a halting program. Therefore, the fact that HHH cannot reach that end is a failure of HHH, not a property of the input.
There is no need to simulate forever, because the simulation would halt naturally one cycle later, as proven by direct execution and world-class simulators.
To think that simulating forever is required is indeed psychotic. No-one else but Olcott thinks that it is required.

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
_DDD()
[00002192] 55             push ebp
[00002193] 8bec           mov ebp,esp
[00002195] 6892210000     push 00002192  // push DDD
[0000219a] e833f4ffff     call 000015d2  // call HHH
[0000219f] 83c404         add esp,+04
[000021a2] 5d             pop ebp
[000021a3] c3             ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [000021a3]
The x86 source code of DDD specifies that this emulated
DDD cannot possibly reach its own emulated "ret" instruction
final halt state when emulated by HHH according to the
semantics of the x86 language.
That you fail to comprehend the self-evident truth of the
above IS NO ACTUAL REBUTTAL WHAT-SO-EVER.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer