Re: HHH(DDD) does not see the exact same behavior pattern as HHH(Infinite_Recursion)

On 7/28/24 10:32 AM, olcott wrote:

It is ridiculously stupid to expect the correct emulation
of a non-halting input to end.

Right. SO why does your supposed "correct emulation" of a input you claim to b on-halting end. Only because you are showing that HHH's emulation is *NOT* a "correct emulation", but only a PARTIAL emulaiton, which doesn't show the behavior of the input after it aborts.

 HHH(DDD) is the exact same pattern with Infinite_Recursion()
where there are no conditional branch instructions that would
prevent the first three instructions of Infinite_Recursion()
from endlessly repeating.

Nope, becasue a call to Infinite_Recursion is not the same thing as a call to HHH(DDD).
The call to Infinite_Recursion will never end no matter how long you look at the behavior of the program.
THe call to HHH(DDD) will, by your admission, emulate DDD for a while and then abort its emulation and then Return. This is because there ARE conditional branch instructions in the execution path, which goes into HHH.
So, unless you want to try to claim that running forever is exactly the same as talting behaovir of HHH(DDD)< you are stuck with being shown to be a liar.
Now, if HHH was an UNCONDITIONAL emulator, and not a decider, there are arguements that the pattern, while not EXACTLY the same, is close enough that a similar proof could be built. But that requires HHH to be a UNCONDITIONAL emulator, the fact that its emulation is conditioned on its halting deciding adds that conditional branch that breaks the infinite loop.
You are just so stupid you don't see that clear and obvous fact, because you don't even seem to know what a PROGRAM is that can be decided on.
Your problem is that you just made yourself into a self-made ignorant idiot which doesn't actually care about what it true, which has made you into the pathetic pathological liar you have proved yourself to be.

 void Infinite_Recursion()
{
   Infinite_Recursion();
}
 _Infinite_Recursion()
[0000215a] 55         push ebp      ; 1st line
[0000215b] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; 2nd line
[0000215d] e8f8ffffff call 0000215a ; 3rd line
[00002162] 5d         pop ebp
[00002163] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0010) [00002163]
 Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:113934
[0000215a][00113924][00113928] 55         push ebp      ; 1st line
[0000215b][00113924][00113928] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; 2nd line
[0000215d][00113920][00002162] e8f8ffffff call 0000215a ; 3rd line
[0000215a][0011391c][00113924] 55         push ebp      ; 1st line
[0000215b][0011391c][00113924] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; 2nd line
[0000215d][00113918][00002162] e8f8ffffff call 0000215a ; 3rd line
Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
 If you cannot see that the above x86 machine code proves that
it will never halt then you can't possibly understand what I
have been saying.
 The first three lines of _Infinite_Recursion() repeat and there
are no conditional branch in that sequence that can possibly keep
it from repeating forever.
 HHH(DDD) is the exact same pattern is shown below. The first
four lines of DDD repeat and there are are no conditional branch
in that sequence that can possibly keep it from repeating forever.
 =====
 void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
}
 _DDD()
[00002177] 55               push ebp      ; 1st line
[00002178] 8bec             mov ebp,esp   ; 2nd line
[0000217a] 6877210000       push 00002177 ; push DDD
[0000217f] e853f4ffff       call 000015d7 ; call HHH
[00002184] 83c404           add esp,+04
[00002187] 5d               pop ebp
[00002188] c3               ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002188]

Which CAN NOT be the input for the progream "DDD" as it calls outside of the input, and thus you are proving that you are just a pathetic ignorant pathological liar.

 // executed HHH emulates 1st instance of DDD
New slave_stack at:10388d
Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:113895
[00002177][00113885][00113889] 55         push ebp      ; 1st line
[00002178][00113885][00113889] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; 2nd line
[0000217a][00113881][00002177] 6877210000 push 00002177 ; push DDD
[0000217f][0011387d][00002184] e853f4ffff call 000015d7 ; call HHH
 // emulated HHH emulates 2nd instance of DDD

But that isn't a correct emulation of the call HHH by ANY criteria.
By the x86 criteria, it must be the instrcuctions of HHH, which need to be part of the input, thus proving your stupdiity.
If by functional equivalence, since HHH is a CONDITIONAL emulation, every step along the way needs to be marked by the fact that the HHH that was called had the option of stopping the emulation before continuing, which shows that the trace is FUNDANMENTALLY DIFFERENT

New slave_stack at:14e2b5
[00002177][0015e2ad][0015e2b1] 55         push ebp      ; 1st line
[00002178][0015e2ad][0015e2b1] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; 2nd line
[0000217a][0015e2a9][00002177] 6877210000 push 00002177 ; push DDD
[0000217f][0015e2a5][00002184] e853f4ffff call 000015d7 ; call HHH
Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
 

Not, if the trace IS correct, and there was no conditionality of the emulation, then that final abort statement is just a LIE, or the proof that you lied before.
Sorry, you are just proving you don't care about what is actually true, but are running your halting-problem scam by the playbook of the election deniers and the climate-change deniers, thus telling them that you agree with their methods, as you use them too.
Sorrty, that just makes you a damned hypocritical liar that is likely destined for an eternity in Gehenna.