Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?

On 2024-08-05 13:49:44 +0000, olcott said:

On 8/5/2024 2:39 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-08-04 18:59:03 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 8/4/2024 1:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/4/24 9:53 AM, olcott wrote:

On 8/4/2024 1:22 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 03.aug.2024 om 18:35 schreef olcott:

 >>>> ∞ instructions of DDD correctly emulated by HHH[∞] never

reach their own "return" instruction final state.
 So you are saying that the infinite one does?
 

 Dreaming again of HHH that does not abort? Dreams are no substitute for facts.
The HHH that aborts and halts, halts. A tautology.

 void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
 That is the right answer to the wrong question.
I am asking whether or not DDD emulated by HHH
reaches its "return" instruction.

 But the "DDD emulated by HHH" is the program DDD above,

 When I say DDD emulated by HHH I mean at any level of
emulation and not and direct execution.

 If you mean anything other than what the words mean you wihout
a definition in the beginning of the same message then it is
not reasonable to expect anyone to understand what you mean.
Instead people may think that you mean what you say or that
you don't know what you are saying.

 If you don't understand what the word "emulate" means look it up.

I know what it means. But the inflected form "emulated" does not
mean what you apparently think it means. You seem to think that
"DDD emulated by HHH" means whatever HHH thinks DDD means but it
does not. DDD means what it means whether HHH emulates it or not.
--
Mikko