Re: Who here understands that the last paragraph is Necessarily true?

On 7/20/24 10:47 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/20/2024 4:20 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-19 14:54:07 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 7/19/2024 1:35 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 18.jul.2024 om 17:37 schreef olcott:

On 7/18/2024 10:27 AM, joes wrote:

>
When you are hungry you remain hungry until you eat.
    Before HHH(DDD) aborts its emulation the directly
    executed DDD() cannot possibly halt.

>
As lame as your other analogies. Being hungry is a state: one can be
sometimes hungry and other times not whithout becaming another person.
Programs are constant texts. They don't have states. They only have
permanent properties.
>

 Right and like Richard says every program always executes
all of itself steps simultaneously so there is never a
point in the execution trace before HHH has aborted its
emulation of DDD when it needs to abort this emulation.
DDD is already aborted before HHH begins to execute.
 It is easy to spot liars when they deny tautologies.
 

Yes, like you do.
The BEHAVIOR of a program is established instanatinously by the code and creates the FULL listing of the step that WILL HAPPEN (as they are fully determined by the code and data).
Thus "Needs to be aborted" is a property of a given input that is a constant over time.
At the begining, HHH doesn't have an idea of that value, so it observes it for a while, HHH doesn't have the knowledge of the value, but the value exists.
If the input is infinite_loop, then HHH will discover that value at some point, and then aborts. Neither learning of the value, nor aborting changed the value of the operation "needs to abort".
When you try to look at the infinite set of HHHs looking at the infinite set of DDDs then each individual DDD has a fixed value of "Needs to be aborted", which will be false for all the DDDs built on HHHs that will decide to abort and return and will be true for all DDDs built on HHHs that will never abort.
The fact that your aborting HHHs do so on the erroneous decision that they think the HHH that DDD calls will not halt, even when they do, is what makes them get the wrong answer.
Part of your problem is that you try to define that all thes DDDs are the "same" because you want to exclude HHH from its description, but that makes DDD NOT A PROGRAM, and thus outside the domain of what Computain theory talks about with halting.