Re: Indirect Reference Changes the Behavior of DDD() relative to DDD emulated by HHH

On 9/6/2024 4:36 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 05.sep.2024 om 15:48 schreef olcott:

 HHH MUST ABORT AFTER SOME FIXED NUMBER OF RECURSIVE EMULATIONS
AND THE OUTERMOST HHH ALWAYS SEE ONE MORE THAN THE NEXT INNER ONE.

 And the outer one, when aborting after two cycles , misses the behaviour of the inner one in the next cycle, where the inner one would see the 'special condition', abort, return to DDD, which would halt as well.
That HHH misses the last part of the behaviour of the program, does not change the fact that this is the behaviour that was coded in the program
 

>
If we have an infinite chain of people each waiting for
the next one down the line to do something then that thing
is never done.

 The infinite chain exists only in your dream. In fact there are only two recursions, so never more that a chain of three HHH in the simulation.
HHH is incorrect in assuming the there is an infinite chain, but this incorrect assumption makes that it aborts and halts. This applies both to the simulating and the simulated HHH.

The way it is encoded now there are only two recursions.
If we encode it as you suggest the outermost directly
executed HHH would wait for the first emulated HHH which
would wait for the second which would wait for third
on and on...
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer