Re: The execution trace of HHH1(DDD) shows the divergence

On 6/7/2025 10:58 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/7/2025 9:56 AM, dbush wrote:

On 6/7/2025 10:54 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/7/2025 9:51 AM, dbush wrote:

On 6/7/2025 10:32 AM, olcott wrote:

The execution trace of HHH1(DDD) shows the divergence
of DDD emulated by HHH from DDD emulated by HHH1.
>
int main()
{
   HHH1(DDD);
}
>
Shows that DDD emulated by HHH and DDD emulated by
HHH1 diverges as soon as HHH begins emulating itself
emulating DDD.
>
*From the execution trace of HHH1(DDD) shown below*
DDD emulated by HHH1              DDD emulated by HHH
[00002183] push ebp               [00002183] push ebp
[00002184] mov ebp,esp            [00002184] mov ebp,esp
[00002186] push 00002183 ; DDD    [00002186] push 00002183 ; DDD
[0000218b] call 000015c3 ; HHH    [0000218b] call 000015c3 ; HHH
*HHH1 emulates DDD once then HHH emulates DDD once, these match*
>
The next instruction of DDD that HHH emulates is at
the machine address of 00002183.
>
The next instruction of DDD that HHH1 emulates is at
the machine address of 00002190.

>
False.
>
The next instruction of DDD that both HHH and HHH1 emulates is at the machine address of 000015c3,

>
*That is not an instruction of DDD*
*That is not an instruction of DDD*
*That is not an instruction of DDD*
*That is not an instruction of DDD*

>
In other words, you're not operating on algorithms.

 In other words you are not actually paying any attention.
 

I'm very much paying to attention to the fact that you stated that the code of the function H is not part of the input and that you're therefore not working on the halting problem.
If you would quit lying about that people would leave you alone.

And since the halting problem is about algorithms, what you're working on has nothing to do with the halting problem.
 If you would just be honest about the fact that you're not working on the halting problem, people would stop bothering you.