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

On 7/13/24 10:31 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/13/2024 9:21 AM, joes wrote:

Am Sat, 13 Jul 2024 08:34:55 -0500 schrieb olcott:

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.

 

Which is definitely not itself. Simulating a decider is guaranteed to
halt. Same as a simulator that aborts.
>

 It cannot abort the simulation of itself because itself
is not simulated.
 

Then either it didn't correctly simulate the Call HHH instruction in DDD, or you agree that aborting a simulation of something doesn't abort that thing, so HHH aborting the simulation of DDD dosn't about the actual DDD, which continues and halt despite HHH saying it doesn't.
Thus, you are admitting that you statement is just false.