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

On 3/27/25 7:40 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/27/2025 4:56 PM, joes wrote:

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.
>

 In other words you either disagree with the x86 language
or don't have a clue about it.
 

No, it is YOU who does, as you think the x86 language somewhere has a definition that the call to some address starts an x86 level emulator.
It has no such thing, a call instruction only transfers execution to the subroutine called.
Even at a meta-logic level of emulation, a call to an emulator only become equivalent to calling the program emulated if the emulator is actually a COMPLETE and correct emulator, no aborting allowed.
Sorry, you are just proving that all your logic is based on FRAUD and lies.