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

On 7/19/24 10:04 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/19/2024 2:35 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-18 14:08:32 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 7/18/2024 3:00 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-17 13:02:31 +0000, olcott said:
>

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

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

>
New slave_stack at:1038c4
Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:1138cc
[00002172][001138bc][001138c0] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002173][001138bc][001138c0] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002175][001138b8][00002172] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a][001138b4][0000217f] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
New slave_stack at:14e2ec
[00002172][0015e2e4][0015e2e8] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002173][0015e2e4][0015e2e8] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002175][0015e2e0][00002172] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a][0015e2dc][0000217f] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped

>
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()
[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]
>
DDD emulated by HHH according to the semantic meaning of
its x86 instructions never stop running unless aborted.

>
The abortion is shown but not any reason to abort.
>

>
In other words it is too difficult for you to understand that
the above specifies this execution trace:
>
*Repeat until aborted*
{
   DDD emulated by HHH
   [00002163] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
   [00002164] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
   [00002166] 6863210000 push 00002163 ; push DDD
   [0000216b] e853f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DDD)
}

>
Your interpretation is wrong, as your interpretations usually are.
Nothing in the trace connects this particular pice of trace to
the abortion. The string "*Repeat untio aborted*" is not a part of
the trace.
>

 *It connects that particular trace to the need to be aborted*

And does so incorrectly

 When we examine the infinite set of every HHH/DDD pair such that:
HHH₁ one step of DDD₁ is correctly emulated by HHH₁.
HHH₂ two steps of DDD₂ are correctly emulated by HHH₂.
HHH₃ three steps of DDD₃ are correctly emulated by HHH₃.
...
HHH∞ The emulation of DDD∞ by HHH∞ never stops running.

And either those are all different DDDs as they included different HHHs in their code, or your "never stops" can't get past 4.

 The above specifies every element of the infinite set of HHH/DDD pairs where 1 to infinity steps of DDD are correctly emulated by HHH.
 

And every DDD is different, and all the DDDs but the last one halt, or your infinity is just 4