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

Am Thu, 27 Mar 2025 13:10:46 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 3/27/2025 6:02 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/26/25 11:47 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/26/2025 10:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

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

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

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,

If you were not intentionally persisting in a lie you would
acknowledge the dead obvious that DDD emulated by HHH according to the
semantics of the x86 language cannot possibly correctly reach its
final halt state.

Yes, HHH is not a correct simulator.

And if you were not intentionally persisting in a lie, you would admit
that your HHH doesn't do that, as it stops before it finishes.
 
 

The behavior that DDD specifies to HHH <is> the behavior that it must
report on.

DDD doesn't specify anything different *to* HHH. It is just the same code.

Which, by the definition, is the behavior of the directly executed DDD,

That is counter-factual.
The behavior IS WHAT IT IS and that includes recursive emulation.

Yes, HHH is counter to the definition - i.e. wrong. It is not
automatically correct whatever it 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.