Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.

Op 10.jul.2024 om 19:53 schreef olcott:

On 7/10/2024 12:45 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 10.jul.2024 om 17:03 schreef olcott:

typedef void (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);
>
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
}
>
int main()
{
   HHH(DDD);
}

>
Unneeded complexity. It is equivalent to:
>
        int main()
        {
          return HHH(main);
        }
>

  Every time any HHH correctly emulates DDD it calls the
x86utm operating system to create a separate process
context with its own memory virtual registers and stack,
thus each recursively emulated DDD is a different instance.

Irrelevant information.

 The instance of main() can't possibly halt HHH correctly
aborts and rejects as non-halting. The entirely different
instance of main() that calls HHH only halts because HHH
was correct to abort its simulated instance.
 

HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly. So, it aborts the simulation one cycle too soon. So, it aborts incorrectly.
Aborting a halting program halfway its simulation is incorrect.
Therefore, its report is not about halting, but about correct simulation.
HHH reports that its simulation failed.
When HHH aborts, it can only report that its simulation failed. It cannot report about halting behaviour, because that behaviour is present in the part of the program that was skipped by the abort.