Re: DD emulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate normally --- x86 code

Am Sat, 01 Mar 2025 18:44:11 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 3/1/2025 4:39 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 01.mrt.2025 om 22:11 schreef olcott:

On 3/1/2025 2:16 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 01.mrt.2025 om 17:33 schreef olcott:

On 3/1/2025 9:39 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 01.mrt.2025 om 15:41 schreef olcott:

On 3/1/2025 6:49 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/28/25 7:47 PM, olcott wrote:

When we hypothesize that the code at machine address 0000213c is
an x86 emulator then we know that DD remains stuck in recursive
emulation and cannot possibly reach its own "ret" instruction
and terminate normally.
When we add the additional complexity that HHH also aborts this
sequence at some point then every level of recursive emulation
immediately stops. This does not enable any DD to ever reach its
"ret" instruction.
>

But then you just negated your first assumption, as a partial
emulator that aborts its emulation, then DD no longer gets stuck.

Exactly.

Cannot possibly reach its own "ret" instruction and terminate
normally

proves failure of HHH to reach the end of a proven terminating
program.

Yah.

DD emulated by HHH according to the above x86 machine code of DD
cannot possibly reach its own "ret" instruction and terminate
normally

Only when simulated, so that’s HHH’s fault.

The DD input to HHH unequivocally specifies a non terminating
computation.

No, DD terminates.

What is the meaning of 'non terminating computation'?

 
The finite string input DD to HHH emulated by HHH according to the
behavior that it species (which includes pathological self-reference)
cannot possibly reach its "ret" instruction and terminate normally.

DD *is not running*. You are only talking about what HHH does.

When we say that the finite string input to HHH halts because some other
instance that is not an input halts that is the same as saying that the
Liar Paradox is true because IT IS TRUE WHEN IT IS APPLIED TO ITSELF.

DD *is* the input, not some other DD that calls HHH1 or HHH with
the abort code disabled.

This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true" IS TRUE.

True.

--
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.