Re: Defining a correct simulating halt decider

Am Fri, 06 Sep 2024 07:47:40 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 9/5/2024 2:41 PM, joes wrote:

Am Thu, 05 Sep 2024 13:10:13 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 9/5/2024 12:22 PM, joes wrote:

Am Thu, 05 Sep 2024 12:17:01 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 9/5/2024 11:56 AM, joes wrote:

Am Thu, 05 Sep 2024 11:52:04 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 9/5/2024 11:34 AM, joes wrote:

Am Thu, 05 Sep 2024 11:10:40 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 9/5/2024 10:57 AM, joes wrote:

 

The directly executed HHH correctly determines that its emulated
DDD must be aborted because DDD keeps *THE EMULATED HHH* stuck in
recursive emulation.

Why doesn’t the simulated HHH abort?

The first HHH cannot wait for its HHH to abort which is waiting for
its HHH to abort on and on with no HHH ever aborting.

But why does HHH halt and return that itself doesn’t halt?

First agree that you understand the first part so that we don't
endlessly digress away from the point.

I smell evasion but fine, I understand that HHH cannot wait.

Do you really understand this?

That’s on you to believe. I can’t prove it.

It took far too long to get to this point we cannot simply drop it
without complete closure before moving on.

I’m a bit surprised that you expect I would suddenly do a 180 in my
argumentation.

<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
     If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until
     H correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop
     running unless aborted then
Thus this criteria has been met.
Do you understand this?

No, which criterion? The if-clause isn’t met; it’s only saying a
simulation isn’t necessary for a halting decision.

We cannot move to any next point until after we finish this point.

Move on to what? I would like some diversion.

--
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.