Sujet : Re: Defining a correct simulating halt decider
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 05. Sep 2024, 18:17:01
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <vbcp2d$e330$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 9/5/2024 11:56 AM, joes wrote:
Am Thu, 05 Sep 2024 11:52:04 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 9/5/2024 11:34 AM, joes wrote:
Am Thu, 05 Sep 2024 11:10:40 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 9/5/2024 10:57 AM, joes wrote:
Am Thu, 05 Sep 2024 08:24:20 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 9/5/2024 2:34 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-09-03 13:00:50 +0000, olcott said:
On 9/3/2024 5:25 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-09-02 16:38:03 +0000, olcott said:
>
Show the details of how DDD emulated by HHH reaches its own machine
address 0000217f.
By HHH returning, which we are guaranteed from its definition as a
decider.
How the F--- Does the emulated HHH return?
I don’t know, you claim it’s a decider!
You KEEP TRYING TO CHEAT by erasing the context !!!
It is very well known by this point.
DDD emulated by HHH CANNOT POSSIBLY reach its own machine address
0000217f.
Only HHH can’t simulate it.
The directly executed HHH correctly determines that its emulated DDD
must be aborted because DDD keeps *THE EMULATED HHH* stuck in recursive
emulation.
Why doesn’t the simulated HHH abort?
The first HHH cannot wait for its HHH to abort
which is waiting for its HHH to abort on and on
with no HHH ever aborting.
-- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Geniushits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
…