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

On 3/27/25 8:11 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.

 _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]
 

Yes, HHH is not a correct simulator.
>

 You say that it is not a correct simulator on the basis
of your ignorance of the x86 language that conclusively
proves that HHH does correctly simulate the first four
instructions of DDD and correctly simulates itself
simulating the first four instructions of DDD.
 

It isn't a correct simulator, because it doesn't reproduce the execution of the program it is simulating, but stops part way.
When we run the program, it won't stop there, but run to completion, so its simulation is just BY DEFINITION incorrect.
Somethng it seems is beyond your understanding.
Note, to simulate the program at all, it needs the definition of HHH. To be an x86 simulator, it needs all the actual code of it. Even at a meta-logic level, it needs an accurate description of what HHH actually does. That can't be that HHH accurately simulates its full program if HHH doesn't in fact do that, which is where you run into your problem. You can't ASSUME it does a correct simulation to then prove that the simulaiton is correct, then your logic violates your own rule that it needs to trace back to an actual truth-maker (and not just an assumption)
You can't stipulate it to do a correct simulation, unless then you follow through, which means you can't then assume that it aborts, as it can't.
Sorry, you are just proving your stupidity, and that you logic is based on FRAUD.