Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?

On 8/4/24 9:53 AM, olcott wrote:

On 8/4/2024 1:22 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 03.aug.2024 om 18:35 schreef olcott:

 >>>> ∞ instructions of DDD correctly emulated by HHH[∞] never

reach their own "return" instruction final state.
>
So you are saying that the infinite one does?
>

>
Dreaming again of HHH that does not abort? Dreams are no substitute for facts.
The HHH that aborts and halts, halts. A tautology.

 void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
 That is the right answer to the wrong question.
I am asking whether or not DDD emulated by HHH
reaches its "return" instruction.

But the "DDD emulated by HHH" is the program DDD above, that calls that HHH. If that HHH aborts its emulation and returns, the program, that is the DDD that was emulated by HHH, does reach the return.
Your WRONG question is does the PARTIAL emulation by HHH of DDD reach that return instruction.
Since you have made it clear that you goal is to talk about Halt Deciding, we need to interprete you ambiquities in that light.

The correct simulation of a halting program halts. A truism.
HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly.
>

 So by correctly you must mean that HHH incorrectly
skips the call from DDD to HHH(DDD).

No, it must EMULATE that HHH, (not produce the output that HHH generates, but emulate the process of getting that output).
The emulation that the HHH called does is MEANINGLESS to the emulation of the call to HHH(DDD) by DDD.

 

I am happy that you were not a member of our team when we developed simulators to check the design of big detector systems.

 Crash dummy simulators?
Not x86 emulators.
 

We knew that a simulation is only correct if it matches the reality. But you seem to think that it is correct that a simulator does not match the reality.

 The reality is that DDD does call HHH(DDD) in recursive
simulation. When you ignore this then you are out-of-touch
with reality.
 

But only FINITE recursion if HHH will ever abort its emulation, and thus is not non-halting unless HHH just never answers, so it isn't the decider you claim.
You seem to think one program can do two different things, just proving your utter stupidity,