Re: Any honest person that knows the x86 language can see... predict correctly

Am Thu, 01 Aug 2024 08:04:23 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 8/1/2024 7:56 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 01.aug.2024 om 13:51 schreef olcott:

On 8/1/2024 2:46 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 01.aug.2024 om 05:51 schreef olcott:

On 7/31/2024 10:08 PM, wij wrote:

On Tue, 2024-07-30 at 18:50 -0500, olcott wrote:

>
It is not supposed to be a general solution to the halting
problem.
it only shows how the "impossible" input is correctly determined
to be non halting.

But how do you determine it is non-halting?
As I know you are even unable to define what 'halt' mean !!!

If DDD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its return
instruction then it never halts.
>

But a correct simulation is impossible.

When HHH does what-ever-the-hell the x86 semantics specifies then HHH
is correct.

But since HHH deviates from the semantics of the x86 language (by
skipping instructions of a halting  program) it is incorrect.
 

Only a freaking moron would believe that a non terminating input should
be simulated forever.

I mean, how many iterations of an infinite loop can I skip simulating or
how many do I have to simulate to get identical behaviour?

--
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.