XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 6/29/2024 2:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 6/29/24 2:47 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 6/29/2024 1:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> On 6/29/24 2:06 PM, olcott wrote:   
      
      
   If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D   
   until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never   
   stop running unless aborted then   
      
   H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D   
   specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.   
      
      
   >>>>   
   >>>> *N steps of correct simulation are specified*   
   >>>> H correctly simulates its input D until H   
   >>>> H correctly simulates its input D until H   
   >>>> H correctly simulates its input D until H   
   >>>> H correctly simulates its input D until H   
   >>>   
   >>> Which does not determine the ACTUAL behavor   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> _DDD()   
   >> [00002172] 55               push ebp      ; housekeeping   
   >> [00002173] 8bec             mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping   
   >> [00002175] 6872210000       push 00002172 ; push DDD   
   >> [0000217a] e853f4ffff       call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)   
   >> [0000217f] 83c404           add esp,+04   
   >> [00002182] 5d               pop ebp   
   >> [00002183] c3               ret   
   >> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]   
   >>   
   >> That you already know that it does prove that DDD correctly   
   >> emulated by HHH would never stop running unless aborted   
   >> or out-of-memory error   
   >>   
   >> *proves that you are trying to get away with a bald-faced lie*   
   >> I really hope that you repent before it is too late.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >   
   > Nope, just shows your stupidity, as the above code has NO defined   
   > behavior as it accesses code that is not defined by it.   
   >   
      
   *Its behavior is completely defined by*   
   (a) The finite string x86 machine code that includes   
        the recursive emulation call from DDD to HHH(DDD).   
      
   (b) The semantics of the x86 language.   
      
   (c) That HHH is an x86 emulator that correctly emulates   
        N steps of DDD.   
      
   *I am not infallible so I may have left out a detail*   
      
   *These facts are deduced from the above facts*   
   (1) The call from DDD to HHH(DDD) when N steps of DDD are   
       correctly emulated by any pure function x86 emulator   
       HHH cannot possibly return.   
      
   (2) (1) means that DDD correctly simulated by HHH would   
        never stop running unless aborted.   
      
   I don't understand why you risk your salvation   
   by trying to get away with such a bald-faced lie.   
      
   Those the believe salvation cannot be lost may   
   correct in the God sees their future behavior thus   
   never granting them salvation in the first place.   
      
   --   
   Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius   
   hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)