Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2

On 7/17/2024 8:35 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 17.jul.2024 om 15:02 schreef olcott:

On 7/17/2024 1:48 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-16 15:57:04 +0000, olcott said:

The trace does not show that HHH returns so there is no basis to
think that HHH is a decider.

The trace shows the data of the executed program of HHH that does
halt.

It shows some of the data, not all, and in particular, not the
halting.

DDD emulated by HHH according to the semantic meaning of its x86
instructions never stop running unless aborted.

You have shown that you do not understand the semantics of the x86
language.
HHH does abort and halt after N cycles,

That is counter-factual

When we examine the infinite set of every HHH/DDD pair such that:
HHH1  One step of DDD is correctly emulated by HHH HHH2  Two steps of
DDD are correctly emulated by HHH HHH3  Three steps of DDD are correctly
emulated by HHH ...
HHH∞  The emulation of DDD by HHH never stops
 
DDD emulated by any pure function HHH according to the semantic meaning
of its x86 instructions never stops running unless aborted.