XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 7/12/2024 5:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 7/12/24 10:56 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >> We stipulate that the only measure of a correct emulation is the   
   >> semantics of the x86 programming language.   
   >   
   > Which means the only "correct emulation" that tells the behavior of the   
   > program at the input is a non-aborted one.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> _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]   
   >>   
   >> When N steps of DDD are emulated by HHH according to the   
   >> semantics of the x86 language then N steps are emulated correctly.   
   >   
   > And thus HHH that do that know only the first N steps of the behavior of   
   > DDD, which continues per the definition of the x86 instruction set until   
   > the COMPLETE emulation (or direct execution) reaches a terminal   
   > instruction.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> When we examine the infinite set of every HHH/DDD pair such that:   
   >> HHH₁ one step of DDD is correctly emulated by HHH.   
   >> HHH₂ two steps of DDD are correctly emulated by HHH.   
   >> HHH₃ three steps of DDD are correctly emulated by HHH.   
   >> ...   
   >> HHH∞ The emulation of DDD by HHH never stops running.   
   >   
   > And thus, the subset that only did a finite number of steps and aborted   
   > its emulation on a non-terminal instrucition only have partial knowledge   
   > of the behavior of their DDD, and by returning to their caller, they   
   > establish that behavior for ALL copies of that HHH, even the one that   
   > DDD calls, which shows that DDD will be halting, even though HHH stopped   
   > its observation of the input before it gets to that point.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> The above specifies the infinite set of every HHH/DDD pair   
   >> where 1 to infinity steps of DDD are correctly emulated by HHH.   
   >>   
   >> No DDD instance of each HHH/DDD pair ever reaches past its   
   >> own machine address of 0000216b and halts.   
   >   
   > Wrong. EVERY DDD of an HHH that simulated its input for only a finite   
   > number of steps WILL halt becuase it will reach its final return.   
   >   
   > The HHH that simulated it for only a finite number of steps, only   
   > learned that finite number of steps of the behaivor, and in EVERY case,   
   > when we look at the behavior past that point, which DOES occur per the   
   > definition of the x86 instruction set, as we have not reached a   
   > "termial" instruction that stops behavior, will see the HHH(DDD) that   
   > DDD called continuing to simulate its input to the point that this one   
   > was defined to stop, and then returns 0 to DDDD and then DDD returning   
   > and ending the behavior.   
   >   
   > You continue to stupidly confuse the PARTIAL observation that HHH does   
   > of the behavior of DDD by its PARTIAL emulation with the ACTUAL FULL   
   > behavior of DDD as defined by the full definition of the x86 insttuction   
   > set.   
   >   
   >   
   >>   
   >> Thus each HHH element of the above infinite set of HHH/DDD   
   >> pairs is necessarily correct to reject its DDD as non-halting.   
   >>   
   >   
   > Nope.   
   >   
   > NONE Of them CORRECTLY rejected itS DDD as non-halting and you are shown   
   > to be ignorant of what you are talking about.   
   >   
   > The HHH that did a partial emulation got the wrong answer, because THEIR   
   > DDD will halt. and the HHH that doen't abort never get around to   
   > rejecting its DDD as non-halting.   
      
   *Here is the gist of my proof it is irrefutable*   
   When no DDD of every HHH/DDD that can possibly exist   
   halts then each HHH that rejects its DDD as non-halting   
   is necessarily correct.   
      
   *No double-talk and weasel words can overcome that*   
      
   --   
   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)