Re: HHH(DDD) computes the mapping from its input to HHH emulating itself emulating DDD --- anyone that says otherwise is a liar

Am Sun, 17 Nov 2024 20:35:43 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 11/17/2024 8:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/17/24 8:44 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/17/2024 4:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/17/24 3:49 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/17/2024 1:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/17/24 1:36 PM, olcott wrote:

I referred to every element of an infinite set of encodings of HHH.

Do you mean they are parameterised by the number of steps they simulate?

When each of them correctly emulates N instructions of its input
then N instructions have been correctly emulated. It is despicably
dishonest of you to say that when N instructions have been correctly
emulated that no instructions have been correctly emulating.

Then not all instructions have been simulated correctly.

I never said that N instructions correctly emulated is no
instructions correctly emulated, just that it isn't a correct
emulation that provides the answer for the semantic property of
halting, which requires emulating to the final state or an unbounded
number of steps.

No, but it is the fact that it CAN be emulated for an unbounded number
of steps that makes it non-halting.

 
It cannot be emulated for an unbounded number of steps.

???
You can continue to simulate an infinite loop forever.

--
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.