Re: Overview of proof that the input to HHH(DDD) specifies non-halting behavior

On 8/12/2024 8:43 PM, olcott wrote:

We prove that the simulation is correct.
Then we prove that this simulation cannot possibly
reach its final halt state / ever stop running without being aborted.
The semantics of the x86 language conclusive proves this is true.
 Thus when we measure the behavior specified by this finite
string by DDD correctly simulated/emulated by HHH it specifies
non-halting behavior.
 https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/369971402_Simulating_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
 

*ESSENCE OF PROOF OF KEY POINTS*
A simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH according to
the semantics of the x86 language is stipulated to be correct.
A correct simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH is
sufficient to correctly predict the behavior of an unlimited
simulation.
Termination analyzers / halt deciders are only required
to correctly predict the behavior of their inputs.
Termination analyzers / halt deciders are only required
to correctly predict the behavior of their inputs, thus
the behavior of non-inputs is outside of their domain.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer