Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- PROOF THAT I AM CORRECT

On 6/21/25 11:38 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/20/2025 7:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/20/25 1:09 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/20/2025 10:27 AM, joes wrote:

Am Fri, 20 Jun 2025 09:53:41 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 6/20/2025 4:42 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 19.jun.2025 om 17:23 schreef olcott:

On 6/19/2025 3:55 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 18.jun.2025 om 17:41 schreef olcott:

On 6/18/2025 4:36 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 17.jun.2025 om 16:36 schreef olcott:

>

Indeed, HHH fails to reach the end of the simulation, even though
the end is only one cycle further from the point where it gave up
the simulation.
>

That is counter-factual and over-your-head.

It was an agreement.
>

No evidence presented for this claim. Dreaming again?
Even a beginner understands that when HHH has code to abort and halt,
the simulated HHH runs one cycle behind the simulating HHH, so that
when the simulating HHH aborts, the simulated HHH is only one cycle
away from the same point.

>
Proving that you do not understand what unreachable code is.

>
Even a beginner understands that when HHH has code to abort and halt,
the simulated HHH runs one cycle behind the simulating HHH, so that
when the simulating HHH aborts, the simulated HHH is only one cycle
away from the same point.

Yes this is factual.

Lol, that was the same paragraph.
>

Every simulated HHH remains one cycle behind its simulator no matter how
deep the recursive simulations go. This means that the outermost
directly executed HHH reaches its abort criteria first.

Yes, no simulator can proceed past a call to itself.
>

>
That is counter-factual and it you knew c well
enough you could verify that is counter-factual.
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c

>
Which shows that HHH never correctly simulates its input, as it always will abort its simulation, and a partial simulation is never a correct simulation by the term-of-art definition.
>

 HHH emulates N x86 machine language instructions of
DDD according to the semantics of the x86 language,
thus necessarily emulates these N instructions correctly.
This also requires HHH to emulate itself emulating DDD
at least once.

Which isn't the definition of "Correct Emulation", and thus is just a lie of equivocation.
Since the last instruction it emuated wasn't a "final state", the act of stoppoing the emulation makes it NOT a "Correct Emulation", just a PARTIAL EMULATION.

 The main computer science definition of halting is
reaching a final halt state, anyone disagreeing is
incorrect. An alternative definition that is easier
for programmers to understand is never stop running.
Any disagreement with these is incorrect.

Right. but youy don't understand the "of what".
It is the PROGRAM (when executed) that reaches the final state.
It

 When there are no N instructions of DDD correctly
simulated by HHH that can possibly reach their final
halt state then it is a verified fact that the input to
HHH(DDD) specifies a non-halting sequence of
configurations. The directly executed DDD() is the
caller of HHH(DDD) thus not its input.
 

No, since every HHH creates a different DDD.
For Every DDD based on ITS HHH, if it returns an answer, there exists a finite number N instructions that when correctly emulated, that DDD will halt.
This value N is just bigger then the number n that that HHH emulated befor aborting,
Sorry, you logic is just based on lies, equivocations, and deceptions.
For your "proof" to be correct, it would be the same as finding a value of N that was greater than N+10
Note, if you claim that the directly executed DDD is NOT what the input to HHH of HHH(DDD) is asking about, you are just admitting that your whole proof is base on a lie, as the semantic meaniing of the proof program specifies that it asks the decider to decide on the behavior of the direct execution of itself (based on being given a correct representation of itself).
If you are now stating that HHH(DDD) doesn't mean that, then you "proof programs equivalents" just are not that, and you are admitting that your whole work is based on LYING,
You can't claim to follow the rules, and then say that the input you give doesn't mean what it was required to mean.
Sorry, you are just caught in your own lies.