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

On 7/27/2024 3:20 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

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?
 

After all of these years and you don't get that?
A simulating partial halt decider can stop simulating
its input when it detects a non-halting behavior pattern.
This does not count as the input halting.

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.
 

*This is indirectly related to your above question*
A decider must be all knowing it is not allowed to get one
input incorrectly. A partial halt decider is only required
to get at least one input correctly.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer