Re: never reaches its halt state ---natural number mapping

Am Tue, 13 Aug 2024 08:58:09 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 8/13/2024 8:34 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 8/13/2024 2:29 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 12.aug.2024 om 14:42 schreef olcott:

On 8/11/2024 2:54 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 11.aug.2024 om 13:45 schreef olcott:

(b) Strawman-deception of changing what I said and rebutting that

That's a lie, too.  I've not seen anybody else apart from you doing
this. Indeed you're doing this as a response to Fred's last post.

Beautiful:

Through something like mathematical induction we can directly see that
DDD correctly emulated by any HHH cannot possibly reach its "return"
instruction final halt state.
HHH is only required to predict whether or not an unlimited emulation of
DDD would ever halt.

Not really. It should predict whether DDD *by itself* halts, not what
any simulator does to its encoding. It can trivially predict what
*itself* returns. By the way DDD's halting depends on HHH.

Thus when computing the behavior that this finite string specifies DDD
never halts.

DDD halts.

DDD always has the exact same finite string of machine code bytes. This
requires each HHH to always be at machine address 000015d2.

It also requires HHH to make up its mind whether it will abort or not.

The computation is always reporting whether or not DDD can possibly
reach its c3 "ret" instruction at machine address [00002183].

--
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.