XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl   
      
   Op 04.aug.2025 om 15:38 schreef olcott:   
   > On 8/4/2025 7:33 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:   
   >> Op 02.aug.2025 om 16:17 schreef olcott:   
   >>> On 8/2/2025 4:22 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:   
   >>>> 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,   
   >>> Try to prove that and you will find that   
   >>> your proof is incoherent or has glaring gaps.   
   >>>   
   >> That has been proven multiple times, but you close your eyes for it.   
   >   
   > Show every single step of the execution trace of DDD   
   > such that DDD simulated by HHH that never aborts reaches   
   > its own machine address of [000021a3].   
   >   
      
   That trace has been show when world-class simulators simulated this input.   
   Even the HHH that does not abort will show the trace.   
   But, of course, we can create another input, with another DDD using the   
   HHH that does not abort, for which this HHH fails.   
   But that is irrelevant.   
   We are talking about an HHH that aborts after two cycles. *That* is the   
   input. It is irrelevant to change the subject and start talking about   
   another input.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)