XPost: comp.theory
From: 643-408-1753@kylheku.com
On 2025-10-28, olcott wrote:
> Once H has correctly determines that its simulated
> D cannot possibly reach its own simulated "return"
> instruction final halt state it is nutty to do
> anything else besides abort and reject the input.
I have traces which prove otherwise.
In several of your .obj test cases, the test subject, like D
or DDD, is proclaimed to be non-halting. Yet when we resume its
abandoned simulation, it halts!
In your oldest Halt7.obj, when I resume the simulation of DD, it does
not halt. So that agrees with HHH's verdict. However, the manner in
which it doe not halt is not that HHH does not return to it. Rather the
simulated DD fails to halt because it reaches the do-the-opposite code,
where it enters into the loop. THus, your HHH is "busted"! The
simulated HHH(DD) returned 1 to the simulated DD, even though the
directly executed HHH(DD) returned 0.
That's a damning inconsistency for which I am awaiting your explanation.
> Starting over with an embedded C interpreter could work
LOL! You don't think I (or someone else) could add the capability to
continue abandoned interpretations to a C interpreter?
> if it was not made moot by the above code snippet.
Without a concrete definition of HHH, you have jack squat.
With this latest narrative about these "15 lines" with no HHH
definition, which somehow figures out the halting of DD, you have
reached an unprecedented level of crankhood.
You might want to come down from crank mountain a few thousand feeet.
--
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
