Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2

On 7/13/2024 6:26 PM, joes wrote:

Am Sat, 13 Jul 2024 17:47:46 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/13/2024 5:40 PM, joes wrote:

Am Sat, 13 Jul 2024 09:31:33 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/13/2024 9:21 AM, joes wrote:

Am Sat, 13 Jul 2024 08:34:55 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/13/2024 8:24 AM, joes wrote:

Am Sat, 13 Jul 2024 08:04:01 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/13/2024 7:20 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 13.jul.2024 om 13:39 schreef olcott:

On 7/13/2024 3:15 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 13.jul.2024 om 01:19 schreef olcott:

On 7/12/2024 5:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/12/24 10:56 AM, olcott wrote:

>

As soon as the decider correctly determines that itself would
never halt unless is aborts the simulation of its input the
decider is required to abort this simulation.

Which decider is aborting here, the simulated or the outer one?
A decider always halts, so it cannot find itself non-halting.

The executed decider is always correct to abort the simulation of
any damn thing that would cause itself to never halt.

Which is definitely not itself. Simulating a decider is guaranteed to
halt. Same as a simulator that aborts.

It cannot abort the simulation of itself because itself is not
simulated.

It certainly is, because the DDD that it simulates calls HHH.

You are thinking of its twin brother.

Can you elaborate? All runtime instances share the same static code.
I am talking about the inner HHH which is called by the simulated DDD.
That one is, according to you, aborted. Which is wrong, because by virtue
of running the same code, the inner HHH aborts ITS simulation of DDD
calling another HHH.
>

 If you have a 100% complete understanding infinite recursion
then I can explain it in terms of much more details, otherwise
you can't possibly understand.