Re: DD emulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate normally --- x86 code

Am Sat, 01 Mar 2025 19:51:34 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 3/1/2025 7:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/1/25 6:47 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/1/2025 2:22 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-03-01 00:47:58 +0000, olcott said:

When we add the additional complexity that HHH also aborts this
sequence at some point then every level of recursive emulation
immediately stops. This does not enable any DD to ever reach its
"ret" instruction.

>
When we add an additional complexity we must note that there are
other additional complexities that could be added instead.
>

When we are answering the question that seems impossible for anyone
here to pay attention to even when repeated hundreds of times:
Can the above DD correctly emulated by HHH possibly reach its own
"ret" instruction and terminate normally?

(You seem to be the one with a (mis)attention problem.)
HHH cannot simulate itself or anything that calls it. DD clearly returns.

The problem is that if HHH correctly emulates DD, then it can not
answer,

That is the same stupid shit as saying that no one can possibly tell
that an infinite loop will ever stop running unless they run it and wait
until after the end of time.

Not if you simulate it, which HHH does.

--
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.