Re: Every HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input --- thorough

On 6/2/2025 1:56 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 02.jun.2025 om 07:12 schreef olcott:

On 6/1/2025 6:20 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-05-31 19:21:10 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 5/31/2025 2:11 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:

Olcott is doing this:
>
int main()
{
DDD(); // DDD calls HHH
}
>
This is incorrect as it is a category (type) error in the form of
conflation of the EXECUTION of DDD with the SIMULATION of DDD: to
completely and correctly simulate/analyse DDD there must be no execution
of DDD prior to the simulation of DDD.
>
Olcott should be doing this:
>
int main()
{
HHH(DDD);
}

>
I would have left it there except that many dozens of
reviewers have pointed out that they believe that HHH
is supposed to report on the behavior of its caller.

>
A halt decider is required to report on the computation it is asked
about. There is no requirement that a halt decider knows or can find
out whether it is called by the program about which is required to
report. Consequently, whether the computaton asked about calls the
decider is irrelevant.
>

>
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
>
The *input* to simulating termination analyzer HHH(DDD)
specifies recursive simulation that can never reach its
*simulated "return" instruction final halt state*

 But a finite recursion, because the input includes the code to abort and halt. That HHH is unable to reach this final 'ret' only shows that using a simulator for the analysis is in this case the wrong decision, because it fails the whole specification of the input.
 

If Mike is having a hard time on this then it must
be really hard to understand. Mike has fully understood
every other detail of the architecture of HHH.
HHH simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD)
that simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD)...
HHH sees its abort criteria just before it is about
to simulate itself simulating DDD a third time.
Every nested simulation of HHH has this same behavior
because they all have the same machine code at
the same machine address.
The outermost HHH sees its abort criteria one whole
recursive emulation before the next inner one.
This means that unless that outer HHH aborts
none-of-them abort.
_DDD()
[00002192] 55             push ebp
[00002193] 8bec           mov ebp,esp
[00002195] 6892210000     push 00002192
[0000219a] e833f4ffff     call 000015d2  // call HHH
[0000219f] 83c404         add esp,+04
[000021a2] 5d             pop ebp
[000021a3] c3             ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [000021a3]
When the outermost HHH aborts its DDD the entire
recursive emulation chain stops right where it is
never reaching past machine address [0000219a].
So we end up with
The *input* to simulating termination analyzer HHH(DDD)
specifies recursive simulation that can never reach its
*simulated "return" instruction final halt state*

Therefore it is wrong to say:
 

>
*Every rebuttal to this changes the words*
>

 because explaining the words show the errors in the suggestion of these words.
 

That was not a rebuttal it was a failure to sufficiently
understand the internal workings of HHH.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer