Re: Defining a correct simulating halt decider

Op 05.sep.2024 om 18:52 schreef olcott:

On 9/5/2024 11:34 AM, joes wrote:

Am Thu, 05 Sep 2024 11:10:40 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 9/5/2024 10:57 AM, joes wrote:

Am Thu, 05 Sep 2024 08:24:20 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 9/5/2024 2:34 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-09-03 13:00:50 +0000, olcott said:

On 9/3/2024 5:25 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-09-02 16:38:03 +0000, olcott said:

>

Show the details of how DDD emulated by HHH reaches its own machine
address 0000217f.

By HHH returning, which we are guaranteed from its definition as a
decider.

How the F--- Does the emulated HHH return?

I don’t know, you claim it’s a decider!
>

 You KEEP TRYING TO CHEAT by erasing the context !!!
 _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]
 00002172, 00002173, 00002175, 0000217a calls HHH(DDD)
then
00002172, 00002173, 00002175, 0000217a calls HHH(DDD)...
 DDD emulated by HHH CANNOT POSSIBLY reach its own
machine address 0000217f.
 The directly executed HHH correctly determines that
its emulated DDD must be aborted because DDD keeps
*THE EMULATED HHH* stuck in recursive emulation.

Dreaming again of the non-aborting HHH, even when the abort code has been added to HHH?
And when the abort code is added, we can create a DDD that is based on this aborting HHH.
But for the input with this aborting HHH, no abort is needed.
So, there is your dilemma:
If the input is the DDD that uses the HHH that does not abort then an abort is needed tot make the program halt.
If the input is the DDD that uses the HHH that has the abort code and halts then there must not be an abort in order to simulate the input up to the end.
None of these HHH is correct for both inputs.
HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly up to end.