Re: Proof that executed HH(DD,DD) and simulated HH(DD,DD) simulate DD correctly -- Mike Terry

On 2024-06-09 12:50:22 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 6/9/2024 2:31 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-08 12:25:35 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 6/8/2024 12:43 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-07 13:49:09 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 6/7/2024 12:49 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-06 15:06:22 +0000, olcott said:

<Professor Sipser agreed>
   If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
   until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
   stop running unless aborted then
>
   H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
   specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</Professor Sipser agreed>
>
// Simplified Linz Ĥ (Linz:1990:319)
// Strachey(1965) CPL translated to C
void P(u32 x)
{
   if (H(x, x))
     HERE: goto HERE;
}
>
People here that are experts in the C programming language know that
*P correctly simulated by H cannot possibly stop running unless aborted*
yet lie about this or to try to get away with the strawman deception
CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT fake rebuttal.

>
People here who have recently followed these discussions know that "P
correctly simulated by H cannot possibly stop running unless aborted"
does not confirm or contradict anything Linz and Strachey have said.

>
When P correctly simulated by H meets this criteria
   If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input P
   until H correctly determines that its simulated P would never
   stop running unless aborted then

>
Still unproven whther P ever meets those criteria, in particular
the last "correctly".
>

>
That you lack the mandatory prerequisite knowledge to understand
that this is correct provided zero evidence that this is incorrect.

>
Doesn't matter. Much less understanding is needed to see that you have
not proven that P ever meets the criteria agreed by Siplser. Equally
clear is that you have not proven that P never meets those criteria.
>

I incorporate by reference
(a) The x86 language
(b) The notion of an x86 emulator
>
(c) I provide this complete function
>
void DDD(int (*x)())
{
   HH(x, x);
}
>
_DDD()
[00001de2] 55         push ebp
[00001de3] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
[00001de5] 8b4508     mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00001de8] 50         push eax         ; push DD
[00001de9] 8b4d08     mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00001dec] 51         push ecx         ; push DD
[00001ded] e890f5ffff call 00001382    ; call HH
[00001df2] 83c408     add esp,+08
[00001df5] 5d         pop ebp
[00001df6] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0021) [00001df6]
>
Then I state that No DDD correctly emulated by any
x86 emulator H can possibly reach its own [00001df6]
instruction.
>
To anyone having this mandatory prerequisite knowledge
(perhaps not you) every x86 emulation of DDD by any
x86 emulator H continually repeats the first seven lines
of DDD until it crashes due to out-of-memory error.

>
OK, but insufficient.
>

>
Try and show what is missing.

 Truth preseving transformations.