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

On 7/13/24 9:34 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/13/2024 8:24 AM, joes wrote:

Am Sat, 13 Jul 2024 08:04:01 -0500 schrieb olcott:

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

Op 13.jul.2024 om 13:39 schreef olcott:

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

Op 13.jul.2024 om 01:19 schreef olcott:

On 7/12/2024 5:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/12/24 10:56 AM, olcott 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.

Do you understand that a simulator that aborts does not run forever?
>

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 decider is aborting here, the simulated or the outer one?
A decider always halts, so it cannot find itself non-halting.
>

 The executed decider is always correct to abort the
simulation of any damn thing that would cause itself
to never halt.
 

But the DDD that HHH was given (which includes the code of the specific HHH that it is using) can be properly simulated by a variant of HHH that doesn't abort.
The issue is you logic is just invalid because it ignores the fundamental property the code does what it does so the only thing that causes it to do anytnhing is its code.
The HHH that never halts isn't the same HHH that aborts, and the DDD that the two are emulating are DIFFERENT (due to the implied inclusion of the code of the HHH that they call), so are not comparable.
Your LOGIC is just invalid as it assume two different things are the same thing, which is just a part of the insanity that seems to infect you.