Mike's correction of Joes correct Fred too

On 8/16/2024 1:57 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 15.aug.2024 om 21:39 schreef olcott:
 It is clear that olcott does not really read what I write. (Or is very short of memory.)
I never said such a thing.
I repeatedly told that the

*YOUR MISTAKE*

simulating HHH aborted when the simulated HHH had only one cycle to go.

That is WRONG. The outermost directly executed HHH aborts
as soon as it has seen enough of the emulated execution
trace to correctly predict that an unlimited execution
would never stop running.
*With abort as soon as you know*
*there is never one more cycle to go*
*MIKES CORRECTION OF YOUR MISTAKE*
On 8/14/2024 10:07 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
 > On 14/08/2024 08:43, joes wrote:
 >> HHH simulates DDD    enter the matrix
 >>    DDD calls HHH(DDD)    Fred: could be eliminated
 >>    HHH simulates DDD    second level
 >>      DDD calls HHH(DDD)    recursion detected
 >>    HHH aborts, returns    outside interference
 >>    DDD halts        voila
 >> HHH halts
 >
 > You're misunderstanding the scenario?  If your simulated
 > HHH aborts its simulation [line 5 above],
*THIS PART RIGHT HERE*
 > then the outer level H would have aborted its
 > identical simulation earlier. You know that, right?
 > [It's what people have been discussing
 > here endlessly for the last few months! :) ]
 >
 > So your trace is impossible...
 >
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer