Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly halt

On 2024-07-10 13:25:54 +0000, olcott said:

On 7/10/2024 2:02 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-09 23:49:16 +0000, olcott said:
 

_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)
 DDD correctly emulated by any pure function HHH that
correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD can't make it
past the above line of code no matter what.
 [00002170] 83c404     add esp,+04
[00002173] 5d         pop ebp
[00002174] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002174]

 The subject line is misleading. There is only one DDD so "DDD correctly
emulated by HHH" should simply mean DDD and nothing else.

 *I added this to my latest paper*

That doesn't fix the subject line.

Every time any HHH correctly emulates DDD it calls the
x86utm operating system to create a separate process
context with its own memory virtual registers and stack,
thus each recursively emulated DDD is a different instance.

There should be a comma after the word "memory".

Simulating Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Simulating_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D 

There is another error on the first page. The first sentence says: "The notion
of a simulating termination analyzer is examined at the concrete level of pairs
of C functions". That is contracited in the fourth paragraph: "To understand
this analysis requires a sufficient knowledge of the C programming language
and what an x86 emulator does". The analysis is not at the level of C functions
if any knowledge about an x86 emulator is needed.
--
Mikko