Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is INCorrectly rejected as non-halting V2

On 7/13/24 9:27 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/13/2024 8:15 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/13/24 9:04 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/13/2024 7:20 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

>
You have a wrong understanding of the semantics of the x86 language. You think that the x86 language specifies that skipping instructions do not change the behaviour of a program.

>
You have the wrong understanding of a decider.
All deciders are required to halt.

>
And are required to give the correct answer.
>
You seem to think it is ok for them to lie if they don't know the right answer.
>

>
As soon as the decider correctly determines that itself
would never halt unless is aborts the simulation of its
input the decider is required to abort this simulation.
>

>
Which it never does, so it gives up and guesses.
>
YOU lie that it does correctly determines the answer, but that is because you lie and don't look at the input that this decider actually has, but look at the input that would have been given to a different decider to show that one wrong.

  *This proves that every rebuttal is wrong somewhere*
No DDD instance of each HHH/DDD pair of the infinite set of
every HHH/DDD pair ever reaches past its own machine address of
0000216b and halts thus proving that every HHH is correct to
reject its input DDD as non-halting.

But every DDD that calls an HHH that aborts its simulation of a copy of that DDD and returns is shown to be halting, not non-halting. It is just that HHH can't see that behavior becuase it aborted its simulation.
"DDD" is the program, not the partial emulation of it, so it halts even if HHHs PARTIAL simulaton of it ddn't reach thatpoint.

 You seem to fail to understand the notion of differing
process contexts. It is a tricky notion for people that
have never done operating system level programming.
https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/context-switch-in-operating-system/
 

Which is something I don't have problems with, since I have written my own operating systems.
Your problem is you don't seem to understand is that all copies of a given deterministic program act the same and that the simulator aborting its simulation doesn't actually stop the behavior of the program it is emulating, as it can't affect that context that the program actually runs in.
You seem to have a fundamental issue with understanding the difference between truth, which is what actually happens with the thing, and the results of finite partial observation of that thing that produces partial knowledge. This just breaks your whole concept of logic.