Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point

Am Thu, 15 Aug 2024 23:20:06 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 8/15/2024 11:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/15/24 10:26 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/15/2024 8:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/15/24 10:58 AM, olcott wrote:

On 8/15/2024 3:19 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-08-14 04:04:23 +0000, Richard Damon said:

On 8/13/24 11:48 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/13/2024 10:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/13/24 10:38 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/13/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/13/24 8:52 PM, olcott wrote:

 

No. The trace is too long, and since you HHH doesn't meet your
requirements (since it isn't a pure function) you can't give me a
compldte input to trace.

>
The trace is regular enough that we could define a formal language
for the trace and construct an analyzer program to detect
deviations from x86 semnatics and hidden inputs.
>

There are no deviations. The x86utm operating system is built from
libx86emu that has had decades of development effort. HHH really
does emulate itself emulating DDD.
>

And then ignores that emulation,

>
counter-factual but you don't care.
>

Then why does it say there were no conditional branches in the
simulation of the code of the program "DDD" where there were in the
simulation of the HHH that was called by DDD and thus part of the
program DDD.

Never heard of dividing the program under test from the test program?
HHH is reporting on the behavior of DDD.

Only that is not possible here, because HHH is part of DDD by design.
If you change the abort conditions on one of them, you break the
recursive structure.