Re: Verified facts regarding the software engineering of DDD, HHH, and HHH1 ---

On 10/26/2024 10:35 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/26/24 9:47 AM, olcott wrote:

On 10/25/2024 11:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/25/24 7:18 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/25/2024 5:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/25/24 5:54 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/25/2024 10:45 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/25/24 9:37 AM, olcott wrote:

On 10/25/2024 7:27 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/24/24 9:04 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/24/2024 6:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/24/24 2:19 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/23/2024 9:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/23/24 10:33 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/23/2024 6:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/23/24 8:33 AM, olcott wrote:

On 10/23/2024 6:12 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/23/24 12:04 AM, olcott wrote:

On 10/22/2024 10:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/22/24 11:25 PM, olcott wrote:

When termination analyzers analyze C functions for
termination the measure of termination is reaching the
"return" statement.

>
Rigjt, when the BEHAIVIOR of the function is to do so,
and that behavior is DEFINED to be the results of direct
execution,

>
That is not DDD emulated by HHH according to the semantics
of the x86 language. That is DDD emulated by HHH1
according to the semantics of the x86 language.

>
Depends on which of the equivocations you are meaning.
If we are talking about the behavior of the PROGRAM DDD.

>
In other words you are saying that DDD must be emulated by
HHH violating the semantics of the x86 language.

>
Where did I say that?
>

The directly executed DDD has the same behavior as DDD
emulated by HHH1 according to the semantics of the x86
language.
The only way for DDD emulated by HHH to have this same
behavior (that includes DDD calling itself) is to ignore the
call to itself.
>

Nope, as "according to the semantics of the x86 language" is an
OBJECTIVE standard, and thus the only meaning of behavior of
"the call itself" is to look at what the x86 processor does on
that call.

>
*That lame excuse tries to pretend that UTMs don't exist*

>
Nope. But UTMs will never abort their emulation of their input,
or they are not a UTM.
>

You claimed that emulation is an incorrect basis and I proved you
wrong.
>

No, I said a PARTIAL emulation is an incorrect basis.
>

*This does not say that*
On 10/25/2024 7:27 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
 > Nope, as "according to the semantics of the x86 language" is an
 > OBJECTIVE standard, and thus the only meaning of behavior of
 > "the call
 > itself" is to look at what the x86 processor does on that call.
>
This does reject emulation out-of-hand and forbids an x86 processor
to emulate itself recursively as is required to form the isomorphism
to the halting problem.
>

Nope, the key is that *IF* you can show that the results of the
emulation will match the behavior of the actual machine,

>
Then you can show that the emulation by HHH disobeys the semantics of
the x86 language:
When DDD is emulated by HHH according to the semantics of the x86
language then HHH must emulate itself emulating DDD.
>

Right, and either it follows the rules of the x86 language and NEVER
stop, or it disobeys the requirements of the x86 language to stop its
emulaiton and return.
 

In other words after all of these years you still don't get this:
    "simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until"
I have told you at least 500 times and your ADD forces you to never see
the *UNTIL*