Re: Simulating termination analyzers by dummies --- criteria is met

On 6/24/24 5:12 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/24/2024 2:52 PM, joes wrote:

Am Mon, 24 Jun 2024 08:46:56 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 6/24/2024 2:22 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-23 13:13:42 +0000, olcott said:

On 6/23/2024 2:57 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-22 14:11:28 +0000, olcott said:

On 6/22/2024 8:27 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/22/24 9:04 AM, olcott wrote:

>

In particular, you can't. You have insisted that your "decider" or
"anlyzer" (or whatever word you happen to use) H or HH (or hwatever
name you happen to use) must return false because a non-input (where
instead of the actually called function another function that does
not halt is called) does not halt.

>

Which is all we need to know about H in ordet to determine that it is
not a decider.
>

void DDD()
{
    H0(DDD);
}
The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated by H0 cannot
possibly return.

 

Why not? H0 is a decider AND simulator, so it can simulate itself
terminating.
>

That is a stupid thing to say.
When H0 is called in recursive emulation the semantics of the x86
language do not allow H0 to simply ignore this and still terminate.
 

THe semantic of the x86 language do not talk at ALL about "recursion" or "emulation" as no instruction in the set needs to directly deal with such things. Yes, you can build recursion emulation out of the instrucitons, but that is a DERIVED property, not an innate one.
You just don't seem to understand such FACTS, perhaps because you don't really understand the things you are trying to talk about.