Re: key error in all the proofs --- Correction of Fred

Am Fri, 16 Aug 2024 13:04:38 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 8/16/2024 12:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/16/24 1:11 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/16/2024 11:47 AM, joes wrote:

Am Fri, 16 Aug 2024 10:07:08 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 8/16/2024 9:59 AM, joes wrote:

Am Fri, 16 Aug 2024 09:42:13 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 8/16/2024 9:28 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/16/24 10:09 AM, olcott wrote:

On 8/16/2024 8:34 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-08-16 12:02:00 +0000, olcott said:

But that also construes that HHH is a program that DOES an
unlimited emulation of DDD, and thus isn't a decider

Yes, because DDD is defined to call its simulator. If you change
the simulator to abort, you also change the simulated HHH. Nobody
cares about HHH aborting a pure simulator.

HHH must predict what the behavior of an unlimited simulation
would be.

The HHH that aborts must predict what DDD calling an aborting HHH
does

NOT AT ALL, NEVER HAS.
PREDICT WHAT THE BEHAVIOR WOULD BE IF IT WAS AN UNLIMITED EMULATION

Yes, an unlimited simulation of an aborting HHH.

Prediction of behavior of unlimited emulation means prediction of
behavior that never aborts.

*is never aborted
I think you are confusing the simulator and the simulated HHH.

Right, but the unlimited emulation of the DDD that calls the HHH that
says non-halting will reach a final state.

I think that you are just twisting my words again.

Funny how you say that.

The unlimited emulation of DDD by HHH never stops running.

The complete simulation of the aborting HHH (called by DDD)
well, halts due to the simulated abort.

--
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.