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

On 7/13/2024 3:20 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-12 14:56:05 +0000, olcott said:
 

We stipulate that the only measure of a correct emulation is the
semantics of the x86 programming language.
>
_DDD()
[00002163] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002164] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002166] 6863210000 push 00002163 ; push DDD
[0000216b] e853f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DDD)
[00002170] 83c404     add esp,+04
[00002173] 5d         pop ebp
[00002174] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002174]
>
When N steps of DDD are emulated by HHH according to the
semantics of the x86 language then N steps are emulated correctly.
>
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 running.
>
The above specifies the infinite set of every HHH/DDD pair
where 1 to infinity steps of DDD are correctly emulated by HHH.
>
No DDD instance of each HHH/DDD pair ever reaches past its
own machine address of 0000216b and halts.
>
Thus each HHH element of the above infinite set of HHH/DDD
pairs is necessarily correct to reject its DDD as non-halting.

 The "V2" in the subject line means that there was an error in the original.
The message should tell what the error was so that readers could focus on
the correction.
 

It does not mean any error.
It means that your suggestions made things clearer.
I used your suggestion in my paper too.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer