XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl   
      
   Op 28.jul.2025 om 14:46 schreef olcott:   
   > On 7/28/2025 3:43 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:   
   >> Op 26.jul.2025 om 20:46 schreef olcott:   
   >>> On 7/26/2025 1:11 PM, joes wrote:   
   >>>> Am Sat, 26 Jul 2025 08:48:48 -0500 schrieb olcott:   
   >>>>> On 7/26/2025 3:05 AM, joes wrote:   
   >>>>>> Am Fri, 25 Jul 2025 15:02:16 -0500 schrieb olcott:   
   >>>>>>> On 7/25/2025 2:10 PM, joes wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> Am Fri, 25 Jul 2025 11:32:03 -0500 schrieb olcott:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Oh, really now? I thought it referred to its simulator HHH by name.   
   >>>>>>> The actual code has always been based on an x86 emulator that   
   >>>>>>> emulates   
   >>>>>>> finite strings of x86 machine code bytes.   
   >>>>>> But does DDD call whatever is behind the name "HHH" or does it   
   >>>>>> call the   
   >>>>>> fixed code that aborts just before the second recursive call? Because   
   >>>>>> DDD calling a modified HHH' is a different program.   
   >>>>> When HHH emulates DDD then DDD calls HHH(DDD) based on whatever   
   >>>>> code is   
   >>>>> at machine address 000015d2.   
   >>>> Ok, so modifying HHH to simulate further also changes the input DDD,   
   >>>> because it calls the same address. Gotcha.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>>> For three years everyone here acts like it is impossible for them to   
   >>>>>>> understand that the correct emulation of an input that calls its own   
   >>>>>>> emulator HHH(DDD) can possibly be different than the emulation of   
   >>>>>>> the   
   >>>>>>> same input that does not call its own emulator HHH1(DDD).   
   >>>>>> It is not impossible to understand. It is wrong.   
   >>>>> Since the execution trace conclusively proves that it is correct your   
   >>>>> mere intuition to the contrary is proven to be incorrect.   
   >>>> The trace only shows it is different. It remains to be shown that the   
   >>>> abort was correct.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>> If we prefix all programs we pass to HHH with DDD, they should not be   
   >>>>>> aborted as if the were the same.   
   >>>>>> If HHH were a correct simulator, it would produce the same   
   >>>>>> behaviour as   
   >>>>>> an UTM. (HHH1 is the same as HHH, right?)   
   >>>> Right?   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> All of the chatbots figure out that I am correct   
   >>> on their own. I only give them this input:   
   >>>   
   >>> typedef void (*ptr)();   
   >>> int HHH(ptr P);   
   >>>   
   >>> void DDD()   
   >>> {   
   >>>    HHH(DDD);   
   >>>    return;   
   >>> }   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>> int main()   
   >>> {   
   >>>    HHH(DDD);   
   >>>    DDD();   
   >>> }   
   >>>   
   >>> Simulating Termination Analyzer HHH correctly simulates its input until:   
   >>> (a) It detects a non-terminating behavior pattern then it aborts its   
   >>> simulation and returns 0,   
   >>> (b) Its simulated input reaches its simulated "return" statement then   
   >>> it returns 1.   
   >>   
   >> These cache-boxes are fed with invalid and contradictory information:   
   >> (a) No non-termination pattern can be detected when it aborts and   
   >> return, because the simulated HHH is also programmed to abort and return.   
   >   
   > DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own   
   > simulated "return" instruction final halt state in one to   
   > infinity steps of correct simulation. This is a verified fact.   
   >   
   >   
   As usual incorrect claims without evidence.   
   Your dreams are no verified facts. HHH aborts before the simulation   
   would reach the final halt state in a finite number of steps, as proven   
   by world-class simulators using exactly the same input. The infinity is   
   only in your dreams.   
      
   When HHH fails to see that there is only a finite recursion and aborts,   
   it is incorrect to feed the chat-box with the idea that HHH recognises   
   non-termination behaviour. There you feed it with your bias.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)