Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point

On 8/13/24 8:52 PM, olcott wrote:

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
 _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]
 A simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH according to
the semantics of the x86 language is necessarily correct.
 

Nope, it is just the correct PARTIAL emulation of the first N instructions of DDD, and not of all of DDD, in particular, it says NOTHING about the behavior of the rest of the instructions of DDD.

A correct simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH is
sufficient to correctly predict the behavior of an unlimited
simulation.

Nope, if a HHH returns to its caller, the correct emulation of the DDD that calls that HHH when correctly emulated by an unlimited emulator WILL reach its final instruction, as it will see DDD call HHH, then HHH emulate N instructions of a copy of DDD, then abort its emulation and return to its caller, which is DDD, which will return.

 Termination analyzers / halt deciders are only required
to correctly predict the behavior of their inputs.
 Termination analyzers / halt deciders are only required
to correctly predict the behavior of their inputs, thus
the behavior of non-inputs is outside of their domain.
 

And that behavior that they are REQUIRED to report on is the behavior of the direct exectuion of the machine the input FULLY represents.
THAT IS DEFINITION.
If the "halt decider" tries to consider anything else that doesn't give the exact same answer as the behavior of the input, it just isn't a halt decider.
THAT IS DEFINITION.
Sorry, you are just showing your self-made ignorance.