Re: This function proves that only the outermost HHH examines the execution trace

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 7/27/2024 1:14 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

Stopping running is not the same as halting.
DDD emulated by HHH stops running when its emulation has been aborted.
This is not the same as reaching its ret instruction and terminating
normally (AKA halting).

I think you're wrong, here.  All your C programs are a stand in for
turing machines.  A turing machine is either running or halted.  There is
no third state "aborted".

Until you take the conventional ideas of
(a) UTM
(b) TM Description
(c) Decider
and combine them together to become a simulating partial halt decider.

Where does the notion of "aborted", as being distinct from halted, come
from?

The key difference between a partial decider and a decider is that
the former case only needs to get at least one input correctly.

That doesn't seem to have anything to do with my point.

An aborted C program certainly doesn't correspond with a running
turing machine - so it must be a halted turing machine.

If you take the view all all new ideas are inherently incorrect
then you would be right within this false assumption.

I don't take that view.  What is "this false assumption" meant to mean?
You haven't spelled it out explicitly.

So aborted programs are halted programs.  If you disagree, perhaps you
could point out where in my arguments above I'm wrong.

You seem to have the above false assumption.

Again, what is that?  You haven't said.

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).