Re: Any honest person that knows the x86 language can see... H predicts INcorrectly

On 7/31/24 11:02 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/31/2024 9:16 AM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 31 Jul 2024 05:52:54 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/31/2024 3:54 AM, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 30 Jul 2024 16:13:55 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/30/2024 4:07 PM, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 30 Jul 2024 15:05:54 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/30/2024 1:48 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 30.jul.2024 om 17:14 schreef olcott:

On 7/30/2024 9:51 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 30.jul.2024 om 16:21 schreef olcott:

On 7/30/2024 1:52 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-29 14:07:53 +0000, olcott said:

>

I proved otherwise. When the abort code is commented out then it
keeps repeating again and again, thus conclusively proving that is
must be aborted or HHH never halts.

But the abort is not commented out in the running code!

>

I modified the original code by commenting out the abort and it does
endlessly repeat just like HHH correctly predicted.

>

Yes, and that modification makes HHH not call itself

Not at all. It makes HHH stop aborting DDD.
So that HHH and DDD endlessly repeat.

 

Commenting out a section changes the program.

This conclusively proving that this section was required.
 

You changed only the inner
HHH's, not the outermost one, thus breaking the recursive simulation.
>

 Not at all. I simply disabled the abort and this resulted
in unlimited repetition non-halting behavior.

And cheated by chainging the input.
Thus proving your "proof" to be based on LIES.
Your HHH1 program, PROVES that HHH doesn't need to abort its simulation, as it simulates the EXSACT SAME INPUT, and shows that it can be actually correctly simulated, and reach a final state.
If you want to try your claim that HHH gets a different correct simulation, which actual x86 instruction, CORRECTLY simulated differed in behavior. Note, *"CORRECT SIMULATION"* of a call HHH instruction means that the simulator traces through the code of HHH, as you claim your simulators do.

 

but a different program. You'd need to also comment out the outermost
abort; then it wouldn't halt, but if you change HHH to abort, you
change all copies of it at the same time (to keep the recursive call
structure).

If your name is Charlie and your leg gets amputated you are still
yourself, you don't get renamed to Bill.

A program's identity changes with its code. It doesn't matter what I label
it in the source. I can define different functions with the same name.
>

 To prove that a section of code is required we remove that
section and the resulting endless repetition proves that
the abort section was required to prevent the endless repetition.

But you can't change the code of the input. So, with you setup you are not ALLOWED to edit the code of HHH, so you can't use that method.
PERIOD.
This is one of the costs of breaking the original design where the input is a fully self-contained program, with its own copy of the decider inside of it,
Of course, you probably couldn't figure out how to make that work.

 To prove that a hot stove will burn your hand you place
your hand firmly on the bright red electric stove burner
and your hand is burned. Renaming yourself to not-burned
Tommy doesn't help.
 

NOpe, just shows how stupid you are.