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

On 8/13/24 3:20 PM, olcott wrote:

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.

No, it is only "a correct emulation of the first N instructions of DDD", not a "correct emulation of DDD" which must continue to the end by the sematics of the x86 language, which doesn't define spontaneous halting.

 If you diverge the slightest trace from those words you
are cheating.