Re: DDD specifies recursive emulation to HHH and halting to HHH1

On 3/26/25 11:09 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/26/2025 8:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
 _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]
 

Non-Halting is that the machine won't reach its final staste even if an unbounded number of steps are emulated. Since HHH doesn't do that, it isn't showing non-halting.
>

 DDD emulated by any HHH will never reach its final state
in an unbounded number of steps.

But DDD emulated by an actually correct emulator will, since the HHH that DDD calls will return 0 to it.

 DDD emulated by HHH1 reaches its final state in a finite
number of steps.
 

Thus

This proves that the DDD input to HHH that defines a
pathological relationship to HHH specifies different
behavior than the DDD input to HHH1 where no
pathological relationship is defined.
 

But that isn't the property that the problem is asking for, as HHH needs to answer about the CORRECT emulation of the input given to it, not ITS emulaition that will only be partial.
You are just proving that you are a liar and a fraud that doesn't know what he is talking about.
Remember the *DEFINITION* of the Halting Problem, that a Halt Decider is supposed to return the mapping of the machine its input describes to its halting status when it is run.
It is EXPLICITLY about the direct execution of the machine described to it, not your subjective POOP of what HHHs simulation shows it.
You are just proving that you don't understand what you are talking about.