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

On 8/13/24 4:43 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/13/2024 3:38 PM, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 13 Aug 2024 08:30:08 -0500 schrieb olcott:

HHH correctly predicts that a correct and unlimited emulation of DDD by
HHH cannot possibly reach its own "return" instruction final halt state.

If let run, the HHH called by DDD will abort and return.
>

H has never ever been required to do an unlimited emulation of a
non-halting input. H has only ever been required to correctly predict
what the behavior of a unlimited emulation would be.

Which it doesn't fulfill.
>

 *I break this down into smaller steps here*
 A simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH according to
the semantics of the x86 language is necessarily correct.
 

Nope, it may be the correct PARTIAL emulation of just the first N instructions of DDD, but if DDD runs for more than N instructions, it isn't a correct emulation of DDD.
Do you correctly walk all they way on a five mile trail, if you leave after walking the first mile.
NO.

A correct simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH is
sufficient to correctly predict the behavior of an unlimited
simulation.

Nope. Proven wrong and you have never even tried to refute that proof.

 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.
 

And that behavior, BY DEFINITION, is the behavior of the directly exectuted machine that the input represents.
THAT IS BY DEFINITION, and any claim otherwise just prove you are a stupid liar that doesn't know what he is talking about.
Try to prove otherwise.