Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly halt

On 7/13/24 7:12 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/13/2024 6:00 PM, joes wrote:

Am Fri, 12 Jul 2024 07:08:04 -0500 schrieb olcott:

When I say the same words 150 and Richard does not see these words I
have to know why this is.
My aim is effective communication. I can't fix the issue unless I know
what the issue it.

You communicate very ineffectively. You should listen to others and
respond to their questions.
>

The two possibilities Richard's ADD, and Richard is a Liar. If is is
Richards's ADD then repeating the same sentence a dozen times seems to
help.

3. Richard is annoying but right, and you are a delusional spammer who
can't rephrase.
>

You did talk of an HHH that only simulated a fixed number of steps.
They do not provide a correct (full) simulation.

when 1 to ∞ steps of DDD are correctly emulated in the infinite set of
every HHH/DDD pair and no DDD halts then we can say that DDD DOES NOT
HALT.

 

DDD halts if HHH does, period. And HHH shall be a decider.
>

 The DDD correctly emulated by HHH it its own separate
process context cannot possibly halt even though it
can be forced to stop running.

No, ALL DDDs that call an HHH that aborts its emulation and return will return.
The emulation of DDD may not reach a final state, but the program it represents do.
Note, "Emulations" do not actually exist in ANY actual process context, just a virtual context in the emulator, and doesn't actually have behavior only reveals the behavior of the machine emulated to the degree that it is emulated.
Remember, "Process Context" is what you RUN programs in.
EmulaEmulationr have there own Process COntext that the emulator runs in, and it creates within it a virtual contret to do the emulations in. That is NOT a context setup by the "os".

 Any input that must be aborted to prevent the non
termination of HHH necessarily specifies non-halting
behavior or it would never need to be aborted.
 

But it doesn't need to be aborts, as shown by the giving the input (that is still paired to this HHH) to a fully corrected emulator that doesn't abort its emulation, which will see DDD call that HHH and that HHH deciding to abort and return to DDD which will return. And thus HHH did not NEED to abort its emulaiton of DDD (though it did) because the correct emulaition of that DDD will halt.
You are confusing it with a DIFFERENT DDD that calls the HHH that never aborts, this DDD is not that one.