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

On 4/2/25 11:55 AM, olcott wrote:

On 4/2/2025 9:14 AM, joes wrote:

Am Mon, 31 Mar 2025 16:26:58 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 3/31/2025 2:10 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 31.mrt.2025 om 20:16 schreef olcott:

>

A simulating termination analyzer is always correct to abort the
simulation and reject the input as non-halting when-so-ever this input
would otherwise prevent itself from halting.
>

But the input is halting, as proven by direct execution.

>
Something other than the input is halting.
HHH1(DDD) shows the same behavior as the direct execution.
   HHH(DDD) shows the behavior of the actual input.

Why are you not passing DDD as input? Why do you not call what you're
doing HHH(HHH(DDD))? What is the difference in what is passed to HHH1?
>

 This seems to be above your level of technical competence.
 _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]

Which isn't a full description of the program DDD, and thus not a valid description for a behavior decider.

 Anyone understanding the above code where HHH
emulates DDD according to the semantics of the
x86 language knows that this DDD (not some
other different DDD) cannot possibly reach its
own final halt state.

Except your HHH doesn't do that, as it stops its emulation short.

 Maybe the whole problem is that everyone here
including Mike never had an actual clue about
the x86 language.
 

No, it seems you are just a pathological liar that doesn't know the meaning of the words he uses.
Sorry, you are just proving you are just a stupid liar.