Re: Copyright for "simulating halt decider" by Olcott for many years --- proves itself correct

On 3/3/2025 2:55 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 03.mrt.2025 om 01:57 schreef olcott:

On 3/2/2025 6:19 PM, Andy Walker wrote:

On 02/03/2025 21:11, olcott wrote:

On 3/2/2025 2:40 PM, Andy Walker wrote:

   http://www.cuboid.me.uk/anw/G12FCO/lect18.html
[start at the third paragraph], [...]

[the third paragraph]

>
     [Note that I said "start at ...", not "look only at ...".]
>

_DD()
[00002133] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping

[...]
>
     Not interested;  sorry.  I was concerned only to point out that
the idea of a "simulating halt decider", or any similar phrase, was not
new in 2004, but has been well-known for many [at least 60] years.  If
you choose to waste your remaining time on this planet trying to do the
impossible, go ahead.  I shan't be joining you, so this will be my last
contribution to the debate unless something interesting crops up.  "DD"
and "HHH" and similar aren't in the least bit interesting to me;  I'm
astonished that others are so fascinated, but that's up to them.
>

>
Lots of people rejected the idea of simulation as an
option so you made no actually relevant point at all.
>
int DD()
{
   int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}
>
The new thing that I discovered is that DD emulated
by HHH cannot possibly reach the self-contradictory
portion thus cannot possibly thwart a correct termination
status decision.

 And Olcott thought it was a clever idea to use a simulator that gets stuck in recursively simulating itself, so that it could not even reach the self-contradictory part.

HHH has no idea that it is emulating itself emulating DD.
HHH  does see that its emulation of DD does match the
infinite recursion behavior pattern.

Olcott did (does) not realise that such an HHH can only report about its own behaviour, not that of its input.

HHH sees DD call the same function with the same params
twice in sequence and HHH also sees that there are no
conditional branch instructions between the invocation
of DD and its call to HHH(DD).
This is all right in the code.
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
u32 Needs_To_Be_Aborted_Trace_HH(Decoded_Line_Of_Code*
                                  execution_trace,
                                  Decoded_Line_Of_Code
                                  *current)
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer