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

On 3/27/2025 2:18 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 27.mrt.2025 om 04:09 schreef olcott:

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

It is not very interesting to know whether a simulator reports that it is unable to reach the end of the simulation of a program that halts in direct execution.

That IS NOT what HHH is reporting.
HHH correctly rejects DDD because DDD correctly
emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own
final halt state.

It is interesting to know:
'Is there an algorithm that can determine for all possible inputs whether the input specifies a program that (according to the semantics of the machine language) halts when directly executed?'

It is the halts while directly executed that is impossible
for all inputs. No TM can ever report on the behavior of
the direct execution of any other TM.
A TM can only report on the behavior that the machine code
of another TM specifies. When it specifies a pathological
relationship then the behavior caused by the pathological
relationship MUST BE REPORTED.

This question seems undecidable for Olcott.
 

--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer