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

Am Fri, 16 Aug 2024 12:09:38 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 8/16/2024 11:41 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/16/24 12:12 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/16/2024 11:00 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/16/24 11:45 AM, olcott wrote:

On 8/16/2024 10:39 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/16/24 11:05 AM, olcott wrote:

On 8/16/2024 9:56 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/16/24 10:42 AM, olcott wrote:

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

Not at all. never has.
HHH must predict what the behavior of an unlimited simulation
would be.

Right, unlimited emulation of the EXACT input that HHH got, that
is the DDD that calls the HHH that is the decider

PREDICT WHAT THE BEHAVIOR WOULD BE IF IT WAS AN UNLIMITED

EMULATION
To clarify: if itself wouldn't abort, not: if it's input wouldn't abort.

Right, and the input to the Halt Decider HHH is the DDD that calls
the Halt Decider HHH, not the DDD that calls the unlimited emulator
HHH.

THIS

You can't get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86
language.

Not even happening.

Which isn't a program, so doesn't HAVE a complete behavior per the
semantics of the x86 language,

It is isomorphic to a program and to a Turing Machine.

See below:

You need to include the code of HHH at 000015d2, and since that code,
as you have provided it elsewhere DOES return to its caller when given
this input, shows that by the x86 semantics, DDD is a halting program.

I have conclusively proved that it has been obviously doing this for
three years.

Unfortunately you must have misread.

THE INPUT TO HHH(DDD) CANNOT POSSIBLY REACH ITS RETURN INSTRUCTION THUS
DOES NOT HALT.

The input DDD does halt.

--
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.