XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl   
      
   Op 01.aug.2025 om 16:54 schreef olcott:   
   > On 8/1/2025 2:11 AM, joes wrote:   
   >> Am Thu, 31 Jul 2025 20:03:15 -0500 schrieb olcott:   
   >>> On 7/31/2025 7:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>> On 7/31/25 8:18 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>> On 7/31/2025 7:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 7/31/25 11:50 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>>>> And that separate proccess, if left unaborted, would halt. But HHH   
   >>>>>> gives up and aborts it, so the process is Halting, not non-halting.   
   >>   
   >>>>>> But the pattern isn't non-halting by the fact that DDD is shown to be   
   >>>>>> halting.   
   >>   
   >>>> but since it is only finite recursion of partial simulation, since the   
   >>>> first level WILL abort the process and end the recursion.   
   >>   
   >>>>> When N instructions of DDD are correctly emulated by every HHH that   
   >>>>> can possibly exist (technically this is an infinite set of HHH/DDD   
   >>>>> pairs) no emulated DDD can possibly halt and every directly executed   
   >>>>> DDD() halts.   
   >>>> Wrong, your problem is you forget that all those DDD are different,   
   >>> It is an infinite set with every HHH/DDD pair having the same property   
   >>> that each DDD cannot possibly halt.   
   >   
   >> Sure, but what about different HHH_n's simulating the same DDD?   
   >>   
   >   
   > _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]   
   >   
   > Each element of the infinite set of HHH/DDD pairs   
   > that emulates a natural number N number of instructions   
   > of DDD never halts.   
      
   Because HHH aborts prematurely, showing the failure of this method.   
   Each of them can be proven incorrect with a HHH with a larger N, when   
   the input is not changed.   
      
   > The machine code bytes of DDD remain   
   > that same.   
      
   Irrelevant, because the input is not only those 18 bytes, but includes   
   all functions called directly or indirectly by DDD, including the HHH   
   that aborts.   
      
   > The only thing that changes is the code of   
   > HHH at machine address 000015d2.   
      
   And that code also belongs to the input, so you change the input.   
   Indeed, for each HHH we can construct a DDD that shows that HHH fails.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)