Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met

On 6/26/24 7:46 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/26/2024 6:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/26/24 9:42 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/26/2024 6:02 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/25/24 11:42 PM, olcott wrote:

>
That is not the way that it actually works.
That the the way that lies are defined.

>
Source for you claim?
>
Where is you finite set of steps from the truthmakers of the system to that claim?
>

>
_DDD()
[00002172] 55               push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec             mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000       push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff       call 000015d2 ; call H0(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404           add esp,+04
[00002182] 5d               pop ebp
[00002183] c3               ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>
The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated
by H0 cannot possibly return.

>
Sure it can. I have shown an H0 that does so.
>

 I already told you that example does not count.
 I can't keep repeating those details or others
that so far have no idea what an x86 emulator is
will be baffled beyond all hope of comprehension.
 

WHy not?
Yes, YOU NEED to repeat the detail, or accept that other details can be brought up too..
ALL your plans are to call you deciders halt deciders, and thus the ONLY interpreation of their behavior is that of the directly executed program they represent.
You have sort of already admitted that as you say it is by the correct x86 semantics of the input, which is basically the same thing, as it doesn't allow the emulation to be aborteed, since x86 programs don't just randomly stop.