Re: DDD emulated by HHH diverges from DDD emulated by HHH1

On 6/6/25 1:35 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/6/2025 12:26 PM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 04 Jun 2025 21:15:52 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 6/4/2025 8:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/4/25 10:52 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/4/2025 1:54 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-06-03 19:57:09 +0000, olcott said:

On 6/3/2025 2:37 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-06-02 15:52:53 +0000, olcott said:

>

The DDD emulated (correctly or otherwise) by HHH is the same DDD as
the one emulated (correctly or otherwise) so both specify the same
behaviour.

>
No they do not. When DDD calls its own emulator its behavior is
different than when DDD calls another different emulator.

Their code is the same and has the same meaning. DDD always calls HHH.
>

If the input string does not unambiguously specify one and only one
behaviour it is incorrectly encoded and not a valid input string. The
halting problem of Truing machines requires that every pair of a
Turing macnine and input is descibed so that the behaviour to be
decided about is the only behaviour that meets to the description.
>

The code proves what it proves.

>

So what "simulation" is the above? It seems that you are showing a
trace from x86, not what HHH is doing.
>

What I am showing is DDD emulated by HHH1 side-by-side with DDD emulated
by HHH
>
*They initially match up*
DDD emulated by HHH1              DDD emulated by HHH [00002183] push
ebp               [00002183] push ebp [00002184] mov ebp,esp
[00002184] mov ebp,esp [00002186] push 00002183 ; DDD    [00002186] push
00002183 ; DDD [0000218b] call 000015c3 ; HHH    [0000218b] call
000015c3 ; HHH *The matching is now all used up*
>
*Then DDD emulated by HHH does something*
*that DDD emulated by HHH1 never does*
*it emulates DDD all over again*

>
HHH1 also does that, and more, because it doesn't abort.
>

 HHH emulates itself emulating DDD
HHH1 NEVER emulates itself

Irrelevent.
It emulates the same "input" which represents the same Program, and thus should have the same behavior.
Of course, the fact that you admit that HHH isn't actually a program says that everything you have done based on properties that require it to be a program are just lies.

 People with IQ's less than 5 don't know
the difference between ALWAYS and NEVER.
To these people the words ALWAYS and NEVER
are mere gibberish noises.
 

Right, and since a given program must ALWAYS behave the same for the same input, your HHH is, by your claims, NEVER a program, as it seems to always be two different programs, and thus your whole work a lie.