Re: Sequence of sequence, selection and iteration matters

On 7/9/24 12:44 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/9/2024 10:21 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 09.jul.2024 om 16:46 schreef olcott:

On 7/9/2024 9:38 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Indeed, no such HHH exists. This proves that HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly.

>
"Correctly" means must do whatever the x86 code specifies.

>
And since the x86 code never specifies an abort, it is incorrect to abort halfway a simulation that would halt. We know it would halt, because other simulators show that it halts when HHH is correctly simulated.
If you want to deny this truth, point to the specification of the x86 language where it says that a program must be aborted. It is irrational to defend an unneeded abort with a reference to the x86 specifications.
>

You are in psychological denial causing you to be irrational.

>
Illogical and irrelevant remarks ignored. I know olcott has problems to recognize the truth, so I do not feel offended.
>

>

>
_DDD()
[00002163] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002164] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002166] 6863210000 push 00002163 ; push DDD
[0000216b] e853f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DDD)
[00002170] 83c404     add esp,+04
[00002173] 5d         pop ebp
[00002174] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002174]
>
*When DDD is correctly emulated by any pure function*
*HHH x86 emulator that can possibly exist* which calls
an emulated HHH(DDD) to repeat this process until the
emulated DDD is aborted.

>

>
And the fact *that* it aborts, makes the simulation incorrect (as Sipser would agree with), because the X86 code does not specify an abort at that point. Therefore, the only conclusion must be: No such HHH exists.

 HHH is fully operational in the x86utm operating system.

And needs to be included as part of the input DDD or it isn't a program.

 _DDD()
[00002163] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002164] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002166] 6863210000 push 00002163 ; push DDD
[0000216b] e853f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DDD)
[00002170] 83c404     add esp,+04
[00002173] 5d         pop ebp
[00002174] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002174]
 When DDD is correctly emulated by any pure function x86
emulator HHH calls an emulated HHH(DDD) this call cannot
possibly return. This prevents the emulated DDD from ever
reaching past its own machine address of 0000216b and halting.
 HHH is required to report that it must abort the emulaton of
its input. HHH cannot correctly report that DDD need not be
aborted on the basis of the behavior of a directly executed
DDD(DDD) after HHH has already aborted its emulated DDD.
The sequence of sequence, selection and iteration cannot be
ignored.
 

Nope, the CALL to HHH by DDD WILL Return if ANY HHH(DDD) call returns, it just will be after the emulation of that DDD is stopped.
Stopping the emulation of a program does not stop the behavior of the program.
Something that seems to be beyound your understanding, which is probarly why you don't understand thing about the nature of truth.