XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 8/1/2025 4:00 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:   
   > Op 30.jul.2025 om 16:52 schreef olcott:   
   >> On 7/30/2025 4:23 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:   
   >>> Op 30.jul.2025 om 05:12 schreef olcott:   
   >>>>   
   >>>> This just occurred to me:   
   >>>> *HHH(DDD)==0 is also correct for another different reason*   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Even if we construed the HHH that DDD calls a part of the   
   >>>> program under test it is true that neither the simulated   
   >>>> DDD nor the simulated HHH cannot possibly reach their own   
   >>>> final halt state.   
   >>> Indeed. But there are different reasons:   
   >>> The simulating HHH fails to reach the final halt state of the   
   >>> simulation because it does a premature abort,   
   >> *I challenge you to show a premature abort*   
   >   
   > This has been presented tro you many times, but you close your eyes for   
   > it and pretend that it does not exist.>   
   >> _DDD()   
   >> [00002192] 55         push ebp   
   >> [00002193] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   
   >> [00002195] 6892210000 push 00002192  // push DDD   
   >> [0000219a] e833f4ffff call 000015d2  // call HHH   
   >> [0000219f] 83c404     add esp,+04   
   >> [000021a2] 5d         pop ebp   
   >> [000021a3] c3         ret   
   >> Size in bytes:(0018) [000021a3]   
   >   
   > We have told you that the suggestion that these 18 bytes are the whole   
   > input is misleading and incorrect. The input also includes all function   
   > called by DDD, directly or indirectly, including the HHH that aborts   
   > after a few cycles.   
   > This input specifies a halting program as other correct simulators and   
   > direct execution prove.   
   >   
      
   Neither the directly executed HHH() the directly executed DDD()   
   not DDD correctly simulated by HHH can possibly ever stop running   
   unless HHH(DDD) aborts the simulation of its input.   
      
   Turing machine halt deciders are only accountable for the   
   behavior that their inputs specifies thus the behavior   
   of non-input direct executions has always been outside   
   of their domain. The DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot   
   possibly halt proves that HHH is correct to reject its input.   
      
   >>   
   >> We have been over this too many times. If it actually   
   >> is a premature abort then you could specify the number   
   >> of N instructions of DDD that must be correctly emulated   
   >> by HHH such that DDD reaches its own final halt state.   
   >   
   > As usual a false claim.   
      
   void DDD()   
   {   
      HHH(DDD);   
      return;   
   }   
      
   _DDD()   
   [00002192] 55         push ebp   
   [00002193] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   
   [00002195] 6892210000 push 00002192  // push DDD   
   [0000219a] e833f4ffff call 000015d2  // call HHH   
   [0000219f] 83c404     add esp,+04   
   [000021a2] 5d         pop ebp   
   [000021a3] c3         ret   
   Size in bytes:(0018) [000021a3]   
      
   If there is an actual *premature abort* then there   
   is a specific point in the execution trace where   
   DDD correctly simulated by HHH stops running without   
   ever being aborted. Otherwise you are using the term   
   *premature abort* incorrectly.   
      
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 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)