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

On 7/17/2024 3:29 PM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 17 Jul 2024 13:13:11 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/17/2024 12:18 PM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 17 Jul 2024 08:43:04 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/17/2024 8:35 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 17.jul.2024 om 15:02 schreef olcott:

On 7/17/2024 1:48 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-16 15:57:04 +0000, olcott said:

>

The trace does not show that HHH returns so there is no basis to
think that HHH is a decider.

The trace shows the data of the executed program of HHH that does
halt.

It shows some of the data, not all, and in particular, not the
halting.

DDD emulated by HHH according to the semantic meaning of its x86
instructions never stop running unless aborted.

Bla bla.

You have shown that you do not understand the semantics of the x86
language.
HHH does abort and halt after N cycles,

That is counter-factual

Then HHH is not a decider.
>

When we examine the infinite set of every HHH/DDD pair such that:
HHH1  One step of DDD is correctly emulated by HHH HHH2  Two steps of
DDD are correctly emulated by HHH HHH3  Three steps of DDD are
correctly emulated by HHH ...
HHH∞  The emulation of DDD by HHH never stops
>
DDD emulated by any pure function HHH according to the semantic
meaning of its x86 instructions never stops running unless aborted.

DDD only calls HHH, which, being a decider, halts.

I referred to every pure function HHH that can possibly exist.
In each case DDD never makes it past it fourth instruction. This means
that every HHH that halts is correct to reject its DDD as non-halting.
Not every HHH halts.

Only the one that doesn't abort after a finite number of steps doesn't
halt, and that one is not a decider.
 

Sure and we are not talking about the quality of Jill's baked
cookies or HHH.
_DDD()
[00002163] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002164] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002166] 6863210000 push 00002163 ; push DDD
[0000216b] e853f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DDD)
[00002170] 83c404     add esp,+04
[00002173] 5d         pop ebp
[00002174] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002174]
When we examine the infinite set of every HHH/DDD pair such that:
HHH1  One step of DDD is correctly emulated by HHH
HHH2  Two steps of DDD are correctly emulated by HHH
HHH3  Three steps of DDD are correctly emulated by HHH
...
HHH∞  The emulation of DDD by HHH never stops
No DDD reaches past its own machine address 0000216b
thus never halts.
When I say that N is some integer > 5 and you disagree
that N is an integer or say that N maybe < 5 you are
either ignorant or a liar.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer