Re: Any honest person that knows the x86 language can see... predict correctly

Op 01.aug.2024 om 15:04 schreef olcott:

On 8/1/2024 7:56 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 01.aug.2024 om 13:51 schreef olcott:

On 8/1/2024 2:46 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 01.aug.2024 om 05:51 schreef olcott:

On 7/31/2024 10:08 PM, wij wrote:

On Tue, 2024-07-30 at 18:50 -0500, olcott wrote:

>
It is not supposed to be a general solution to the halting problem.
it only shows how the "impossible" input is correctly determined
to be non halting.
>

>
But how do you determine it is non-halting?
>
As I know you are even unable to define what 'halt' mean !!!
>

I have done this thousands of times and after someone
has read these thousands of times they say that I never
said it once.
>
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
>
int main()
{
   HHH(DDD);
}
>
If DDD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly
reach its return instruction then it never halts.
>
>

>
But a correct simulation is impossible.

>
When HHH does what-ever-the-hell the x86 semantics specifies
then HHH is correct.
>

>
But since HHH deviates from the semantics of the x86 language (by skipping instructions of a halting  program) it is incorrect.
>

 Only a freaking moron would believe that a non
terminating input should be simulated forever.
 

We are not talking about your dreams of a non aborting HHH. We are talking about an aborting HHH which terminates.
So, who is the freaking moron talking about non-terminating input?
Dreams are no substitute for fact or for logic.
Skipping the last cycle of the simulation of HHH, which aborts after two cycles, is a deviation from the semantics of the x86 language.
But, you are a slow learner. Probably you will repeat the same error another thousand times.