Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it ---

On 8/10/24 3:15 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/10/2024 1:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/10/24 2:11 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/10/2024 12:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/10/24 1:37 PM, olcott wrote:

>
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
>
*The set of HHH x86 emulators are defined such that*
Each element of this set corresponds to one element of the set
of positive integers indicating the number of  x86 instructions
of DDD that it emulates.

>

 *This is the mistake that I corrected*

But since none of your traces show more that 4, that is a lie, since you haven't been able to establish the HHH itself correctly emulates ANY of the instructions of the program DDD after the call HHH, as everything says it jumps to something other than the correct x86 emulation of the program DDD that it was given.
But, we can overlook that, since you fail otherways.

But every one that emulates for a finite number of steps, and then returns create a halting DDD, so you claim is just disproven.

 <snip>

And it still does. If HHH emulates for a finite number of steps, then returns, then the PROGRAM DDD that calls that HHH will halt.
PERIOD.
PROVEN.
Only the PARTIAL emulation by HHH of that input doesn't reach that point, because HHH has been programmed to give up too soon.

>
When each element of the outer-most directly executed SHH
corresponds to one element of the set of positive integers
indicating the number of x86 instructions of DDD that it
emulates none of the emulated instances of HHH ever returns.

>
And EVERY ONE Of them doesn't get the right answer.
>

 *Yes it does seem to be your ADD*
We are not even talking about the right answer.
 We are talking about your mistake that at least one
element of the emulated HHH returns.
*None of them ever returns no-matter-what*
 

No, we are talking abort the right answer to your question.
IF the topic of the sentence is "DDD", then the answer is based on the full behavior of the program DDD, which is to halt if HHH returns.
To get the answer you want, you have to be talking about the emulation by HHH of DDD where the topic is the emulation.
The problem seems to be that you don't understand that aspect of grammer. the Simulation of DDD by HHH and the DDD that HHH emulated are fundamentally two different concepts, even if they look at the same code.
The emulation of DDD by HHH is a subjective property of the input, while the behavior of DDD is an objective property that is independent of who looks at it (but of course is a function of what HHH is put into DDD, the tying of these together is outside that logic and just restricts what you can actually show).