Re: DDD emulated by HHH --- (does not refer to prior posts)

Am Sat, 31 Aug 2024 10:19:28 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 8/31/2024 9:59 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 31.aug.2024 om 14:03 schreef olcott:

On 8/31/2024 4:07 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 30.aug.2024 om 16:58 schreef olcott:

On 8/30/2024 9:56 AM, joes wrote:

Am Thu, 29 Aug 2024 09:07:39 -0500 schrieb olcott:

HHH correctly predicts what the behavior of DDD would be if this
HHH never aborted its emulation of DDD.

Problem is, DDD is then not calling itself, but the non-input of a
not-aborting HHH.

*This is before any aborting occurs*

Here is your problem. The code of the program and its meaning
according to the semantics of the x86 language, does not suddenly
change when the aborting occurs.

^ important

You cannot possibly say one damn thing about the behavior of DDD until
you first understand that a world class x86 emulator that HHH calls
does enable HHH to correctly emulate itself emulating DDD and the
following execution trace proves this.

And when this unmodified world class x86 simulator was given olcott's
DDD based on the aborting HHH as input, it showed that this has halting
behaviour.
THIS IS A VERIFIED FACT! Even olcott has verified it.
This correct simulation by the unmodified world class simulator tells
us that the program has a halting behaviour.
Your *modification* of the simulator stops the simulation before it can
see the halting behaviour and decides that the input is non-halting.
We know which one is correct: the unmodified world class simulator, not
the *modified* one, which aborts one cycle too soon..

Still dreaming of the HHH that does an infinite recursion?

Before we can proceed to the next step you must first agree that the
second emulation of DDD by the emulated HHH is proven to be correct on
the basis that it does emulate the first four instructions of DDD.

The fourth instruction (the call) encompasses quite a few further
instructions, which must all(!) be simulated until it returns. Only
then is it finished.

--
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.