Re: This function proves that only the outermost HHH examines the execution trace

On 7/27/2024 9:17 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 26.jul.2024 om 22:14 schreef olcott:

On 7/26/2024 2:46 PM, Mike Terry wrote:

On 26/07/2024 16:56, olcott wrote:

This is meant for Mike, Joes and Fred don't have the technical
competence to understand it.
>
Richard might be able to understand it yet the fact that he is stuck
in rebuttal mode makes any understanding that he may have utterly
useless.
>
Mike: It seems that HHH has been a pure function of its inputs and
never has provided data downward to its slaves that corrupts their
halt status decision. They don't even make a halt status decision
thus cannot make a corrupted one.

>
Well, the first two claims are literally untrue - outer HHH
effectively uses the static mutable data to pass flags to the inner
HHH that modify its behaviour.  The Root flag below is derived from
the actual static data and causes inner HHH to totally skip its own
abort logic!
>
You seem to acknowledge this, but claim it does not matter for
various reasons, because whatever mistakes you are making, what
finally gets printed out is saying the right thing!
>
>

If HHH gets the correct answer in an impure way then it only counts
that it gets it in an impure way if it is impossible to get in a pure
way. This makes it possible for HHH to get this answer in a pure way:
>

In a similar way we can create an HHH that is able to reach the return
of DDD.

Any emulation of DDD by HHH such that DDD reaches its return instruction
is an incorrect emulation.