Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly halt ---Eternal-September-Failure

On 7/10/24 9:09 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/10/2024 6:24 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/9/24 11:08 PM, olcott wrote:

 _DDD()
[00002163] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002164] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002166] 6863210000 push 00002163 ; push DDD
[0000216b] e853f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DDD)
[00002170] 83c404     add esp,+04
[00002173] 5d         pop ebp
[00002174] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002174]
 

>
You are just proving you don't know what you are talking about.
>
The emulation of DDD by HHH can't make it there, but the DDD that was emulated only a finite number of steps by HHH will, after the HHH aborts its emulation and returns to its caller (which was DDD).

Anyone that sufficiently understands the semantics of
the x86 language understands that:
 *DDD correctly emulated by any pure function HHH that*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD can't make it*
*past its own machine address 0000216b*

Nope, which just shows that you do not understand the x86 instruction set, or even how computers work.
First, no partial emulation is fully correct as part of the definiton of EVERY instruction you emulated, it that the next one in sequence WILL be executed. Since you had to break that rule to stop emulation.
Second, since we CAN look at the correct emulation of the input since we know the behavior of HHH (or at least what you claim its behavior to be) we can see that if HHH(DDD) does return, then DDD will halt. PERIOD.
if not, you have lied that HHH is a pure function.
All you can show is that the PARTIAL (and thus not fully correct) emulation done by HHH, doesn't reach that point, and when we compare that emulation to the actual COMPLETE emulation we see that HHH just gave up too soon, because its programmer was stupid and didn't understan how to do correct logic,
Remember, at any examination of this problem, HHH is just a single program, and doesn't change. If that instance does abort, it turns out to be incorrect. If that instance doesn't abort, we have a DIFFERENT input (using the differnt HHH) and that one should have been aborted, but wasn't, so HHH gets stuck never answering.
You problem is you accepted doing a problem that you can not solve, just like any version of Nim with a second player wins stratagy and you choose to go first.

 No sense us ever talking about this again because you
chose to either remain ignorant or lie and this isn't
going to change.

YOU are the ignorant one. Try to show a reference for you claim.

 You probably would not accept the view of any world
class expert thus indicate that between ignorant
and liar you would choose liar.
 

You assume that ALL the world class experts must be wrong because they disagree with you.
That shows how narrow minded you are.