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

On 7/14/2024 3:40 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-13 12:22:24 +0000, olcott said:

On 7/13/2024 3:00 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-12 13:20:53 +0000, olcott said:

On 7/12/2024 3:03 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-11 14:10:24 +0000, olcott said:

On 7/11/2024 1:25 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-10 17:53:38 +0000, olcott said:

On 7/10/2024 12:45 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 10.jul.2024 om 17:03 schreef olcott:

However, each of those instances has the same sequence of
instructions that the x86 language specifies the same operational
meaning.

*That is counter-factual*
When DDD is correctly emulated by HHH according to the semantics
of the x86 programming language HHH must abort its emulation of
DDD or both HHH and DDD never halt.

There is not "must" anywhere in the semantics of the programming
language.

The semantics of the language specifies the behavior of the machine
code thus deriving the must.

How can one derive "must" from the semantics of the machine code?

Deciders are required to (thus must) halt.

The semantics of the x86 language does not require that, nor that any
of the programs is a decider.

The subject our our conversion is a simulating termination analyzer AKA
partial halt decider that accepts a finite string of x86 code as
specifying halting behavior or rejects this finite string. Deciders are
required to halt thus must abort the emulation of any input that would
prevent this.
Any input that must be aborted to prevent the non termination of HHH
necessarily specifies non-halting behavior or it would never need to be
aborted.