Re: DDD incorrectly emulated by HHH is inCorrectly rejected as non-halting V2

On 7/17/24 2:13 PM, olcott wrote:

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.
>

 _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]
 You didn't bother to pay close enough attention.
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.
 

Of course it does, since the code at 000015c3 is part of DDD, or you are just admitting you don't understand what a program is or what a correcgt x86 emulaiton is.
I guess you are just admitting to being a LYING IDIOT.