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

On 7/13/24 11:15 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/13/2024 9:48 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/13/24 10:35 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/13/2024 9:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

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

>
By this same reasoning when you are hungry and eat until
you are full you are still hungry because you are still
yourself.

>
Not at all, I am not a deterministic entity like HHH and DDD.
>

 In other words when you are very hungry you have the
free will to decide that you are not hungry at all
and never eat anything ever again with no ill effects
to your health what-so-ever.
 

Just shows that though I have free will, I am also in a Universe with a lot of determinism.

Try and use this free will to make a square circle.

Nope, just shows you don't know what you are talking about and need to switch to Red Herring because you lost the argument.
Face it, all you have proved is that you are nothing but a pathetic ignorant pathological lying idiot.

 

>
After HHH has already aborted its simulation of DDD
and returns to the DDD that called it is not the same
behavior as DDD simulated by HHH that must be aborted.
>

>
Right, and the question is about the behavior of DDD,

 the input finite string not an external process that HHH
has no access to.
 

Right, but the program it represents, and the question is about IS.
You just don't even know the problem you claim to be working on, because you are jut THAT STUPID.