Re: key error in all the proofs --- Mike's correction of Joes

On 8/14/2024 3:56 PM, Mike Terry wrote:

On 14/08/2024 18:45, olcott wrote:

On 8/14/2024 11:31 AM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 14 Aug 2024 08:42:33 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 8/14/2024 2:30 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-08-13 13:30:08 +0000, olcott said:

On 8/13/2024 6:23 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/12/24 11:45 PM, olcott wrote:

>
*DDD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its* *own
"return" instruction final halt state, thus never halts*
>

Which is only correct if HHH actuallly does a complete and correct
emulation, or the behavior DDD (but not the emulation of DDD by HHH)
will reach that return.
>

A complete emulation of a non-terminating input has always been a
contradiction in terms.
HHH correctly predicts that a correct and unlimited emulation of DDD
by HHH cannot possibly reach its own "return" instruction final halt
state.

>
That is not a meaningful prediction because a complete and unlimited
emulation of DDD by HHH never happens.
>

A complete emulation is not required to correctly predict that a
complete emulation would never halt.

What do we care about a complete simulation? HHH isn't doing one.
>

>
Please go read how Mike corrected you.
>

 Lol, dude...  I mentioned nothing about complete/incomplete simulations.
 

*You corrected Joes most persistent error*
She made sure to ignore this correction.

But while we're here - a complete simulation of input D() would clearly halt. 

_DDD()
[00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404     add esp,+04
[00002182] 5d         pop ebp
[00002183] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
A complete simulation *by HHH* remains stuck in
infinite recursion until aborted.
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.
*This make the words you say below moot*

You have seen that yourself, e.g. with main() calling DDD(), or UTM(DDD), or HHH1(DDD).  [All of those simulate DDD to completion and see DDD return.  What I said earlier was that HHH(DDD) does not simulate DDD to completion, which I think everyone recognises - it aborts before DDD() halts.
  Mike.
 

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer