Re: Overview of proof that the input to HHH(DDD) specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike --- point by point

On 8/13/2024 2:08 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 13.aug.2024 om 20:07 schreef olcott:

On 8/13/2024 12:58 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 13.aug.2024 om 18:36 schreef olcott:

On 8/13/2024 11:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 13.aug.2024 om 17:25 schreef olcott:

On 8/13/2024 9:40 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 13.aug.2024 om 15:04 schreef olcott:

On 8/13/2024 5:57 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-08-13 01:43:49 +0000, olcott said:
>

We prove that the simulation is correct.
Then we prove that this simulation cannot possibly
reach its final halt state / ever stop running without being aborted.
The semantics of the x86 language conclusive proves this is true.
>
Thus when we measure the behavior specified by this finite
string by DDD correctly simulated/emulated by HHH it specifies
non-halting behavior.
>
https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/369971402_Simulating_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D

>
Input to HHH(DDD) is DDD. If there is any other input then the proof is
not interesting.
>
The behviour specified by DDD on the first page of the linked article
is halting if HHH(DDD) halts. Otherwise HHH is not interesting.
>
Any proof of the false statement that "the input to HHH(DDD) specifies
non-halting behaviour" is either uninteresting or unsound.
>

>
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
>
It is true that DDD correctly emulated by any HHH cannot
possibly reach its own "return" instruction final halt state.

>
Contradiction in terminus.
A correct simulation is not possible.

>
*YOU JUST DON'T GET THIS*
A simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH according to
the semantics of the x86 language is stipulated to be correct.

>
You don't get that you cannot stipulate that something is correct.

>
It is objectively incorrect to disagree with the semantics
of the x86 language when one is assessing whether or not
an emulation of N instructions of an input is correct or
incorrect.
>
If you can't agree to that anything else that you say is moot.
>

>
It is objectively incorrect to say that a simulation is correct when it only simulated the first N instructions correctly.

>
It is objectively correct to say that the first N instructions
were emulated correctly when the first N instructions were
emulated correctly.
>
Changing my words then providing a rebuttal for these changed
words is a form of intentional deceit known as strawman.
>
>

 *You* are changing words.
A few lines above *you* said:
 >>>>>>> It is true that DDD correctly emulated by any HHH cannot
 >>>>>>> possibly reach its own "return" instruction final halt state.
 

It is cheating to provide a rebuttal to the words that I
actually said right now based on any other words that I
said anywhere else.
A simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH according to
the semantics of the x86 language is necessarily correct.
If you diverge the slightest trace from those words you
are cheating.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer