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

On 3/3/25 9:27 AM, olcott wrote:

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.

Exfept it doesn't, since there WERE conditional instruction along the emulated path.
Also, HHH never CALLS DD, it emulates it, so unless you can prove that this HHH is a correct emulator that never aborts (which you can't since it will) you can't even claim infinite recursive emulation.
Sorry, your logic is just based on LIES.

 

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).

Which is irrelevent. Remember you said that HHH doesn't know that it is calling itself, so it doesn't know that HHH is an emulator, and thus it never sees HHH CALL DD, so we

 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)

Which has false patterns in it, which have been pointed out and ignored, proving you just don't care about the truth.