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

Am Tue, 13 Aug 2024 21:38:07 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 8/13/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

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

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,

That is what I said dufuss.

You were trying to label an incomplete/partial/aborted simulation
as correct.

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,

*Try to show exactly how DDD emulated by HHH returns to its caller*

how *HHH* returns

(the first one doesn't even have a caller)
Use the above machine language instructions to show this.

HHH simulates DDD enter the matrix
  DDD calls HHH(DDD) Fred: could be eliminated
  HHH simulates DDD second level
    DDD calls HHH(DDD) recursion detected
  HHH aborts, returns outside interference
  DDD halts voila
HHH halts

--
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.