Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met

On 6/26/24 9:42 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/26/2024 6:02 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/25/24 11:42 PM, olcott wrote:

>
That is not the way that it actually works.
That the the way that lies are defined.

>
Source for you claim?
>
Where is you finite set of steps from the truthmakers of the system to that claim?
>

 _DDD()
[00002172] 55               push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec             mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000       push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff       call 000015d2 ; call H0(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404           add esp,+04
[00002182] 5d               pop ebp
[00002183] c3               ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
 The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated
by H0 cannot possibly return.

Sure it can. I have shown an H0 that does so.
And, if H0 aborts is emulation, it only did a PARTIAL emulation and can not make claims about the future correct emulation of that input.
So, it can't says that the call to H0(DDD) can not return, only that it did not emulate that call to the point of possible return,

 When DDD is correctly emulated by an 86 emulator at
machine address 00002175 this is the sequence defined
by the semantics of the x86 language:
 *REPEAT UNTIL OUT-OF-MEMORY ERROR*
[00002172] 55               push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec             mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000       push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff       call 000015d2 ; call H0(DDD)

ABSOLUTELY NOI.
The semantics of the x86 language say that the call 000015d2 MUST be followed by the emulation of the instruction at 000015d2, or the emulation must be TERMINATE TOTALLY due to unspecified code.
IT CAN NOT just continue back at 00002172, as the instruction stream of the program won't get there.

 The finite string input to H0 DOES SPECIFY THAT THE CALL
FROM DDD TO H0(DDD) CANNOT POSSIBLY RETURN IN EVERY SINGLE
CASE WHERE DDD IS CORRECTLY EMULATED BY THE DIRECTLY EXECUTED
H0 AND THIS H0 IS A PURE FUNCTION OF ITS INPUTS.
 

Nope. You are just proving you are just an ignorant pathological liar that doesn't undertstand what he is talking about.
To you, INCORRECT things are "obviously correct", so you have a pathology about Truth.