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

On 7/13/24 9:30 AM, olcott wrote:

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

On 7/13/24 7:39 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/13/2024 3:15 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

>
This is double talk, because no HHH can possibly exist that simulates itself correctly.

>
Your definition of correct contradicts the semantics of
the x86 language making it wrong.
>

>
No your ideas of the x86 language contradicts the actual sematic of the language.
>
Where does it ever even imply that a partial emulation correctly predicts the behavior of the full program?
>

 You switch from disagreeing with the x86 language to disagreeing
that all deciders must halt.
 *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.
 

No, because it has been shown that EVERY DDD instance that is based on ANY of the HHHs that abort their emulation and return will also reach past that address and return. It is only the PARTIAL EMULATION of them by HHH which does not and that is NOT a "correct emulation" per the x86 language as it breaks the "and the next instruction will execute rule"
The fact that HHH has been designed to do this to meet the requirement to be a decider does not remove the requirement to answer per the behavior specified by the x86 language, which the decider now does not know.
Your "Logic" seems to be based on the concept that it is ok to lie if that is all you know how to do. That means yout logic just is not correct.
Your assumption that you can not be wrong just makes you wrong, as you think it is ok to assume things that are just not true. So, you are just lying to yourself and believing those lies.