Re: Hypothetical possibilities -- I reread this again more carefully

On 7/21/2024 9:33 AM, joes wrote:

Am Sun, 21 Jul 2024 09:19:43 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/21/2024 4:05 AM, joes wrote:

Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 22:31:04 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/20/2024 10:14 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/20/2024 8:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/20/24 9:23 PM, olcott wrote:

 

DDD *correctly simulated* by pure function HHH cannot possibly reach
its own return instruction.

Only DDD correctly emulated by HHH maps the finite string of the x86
machine code of DDD to the behavior that it actually specifies.

Almost correct. Other simulators may map it too, to the behaviour of
the direct execution. HHH doesn't.

No decider is ever allowed to report on the behavior of the actual
computation that itself is contained within because all deciders only
take finite string inputs and thus never take a directly executing
process as an input.

Of course. A decider may, however, be given the description of its
enclosing program as input.
 

The behavior of emulated DDD after it has been aborted
changes the behavior of the directly executed DDD.
When the second call of what would otherwise be infinite recursion
is required to be aborted to prevent the infinite execution of the
first call this proves that HHH(DDD)==0 is correct even though
the directly executed DDD() halts.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer