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

On 06/08/2024 04:21, olcott wrote:

On 8/5/2024 10:12 PM, Mike Terry wrote:

On 06/08/2024 03:25, olcott wrote:

On 8/5/2024 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/5/24 8:07 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/5/2024 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/5/24 9:49 AM, olcott wrote:

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.
>
DDD (above) cannot possibly reach its own "return" instruction halt
state when its machine code is correctly emulated by HHH.
>

>
Only because an HHH that does so never returns to anybody.
>

>
Do you really not understand that recursive emulation <is>
isomorphic to infinite recursion?
>

>
Not when the emulation is conditional.
>

>
Infinite_Recursion() meets the exact same condition that DDD
emulated by HHH makes and you know this. Since you are so
persistently trying to get away contradicting the semantics
of the x86 language the time is coming where there is zero
doubt that this is an honest mistake.
>
Ben does correctly understand that the first half of the Sipser
approved criteria is met. Even Mike finally admitted this.

>
I don't recall doing that.  Please provide a reference for this.
>

 On 8/2/2024 8:19 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
 > It's easy enough to say "PO has his own criterion for
 > halting, which is materially different from the HP condition,
 > and so we all agree PO is correct by his own criterion...
 

That is not agreeing that the first half of the Sipser approved criteria is met.  I was clearly discussing Ben's comments.  If I had been agreeing with your claim I would have said it explicitly - not that "it's easy enough to say...".  I am very confident that if Sipser actually understood how you were trying to misinterpret his words, he would quickly point out that they do not apply in the scenario you propose.
Pleas stop misrepresenting my views.  [I accept you did not mean to do this, and you have a basic inability to comprehend what other posters are actually saying.  I'll even accept that I might have expressed myself more clearly on this occasion!]
In fact, why not go further, and stop altogether your fallacious appeals to authority?  They do not look good to casual readers as they suggest you have no logical reasoning to argue your case.
Mike.