Re: Defining a correct simulating halt decider

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:

Am Thu, 05 Sep 2024 08:24:20 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 9/5/2024 2:34 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-09-03 13:00:50 +0000, olcott said:

On 9/3/2024 5:25 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-09-02 16:38:03 +0000, olcott said:

>

Show the details of how DDD emulated by HHH reaches its own
machine address 0000217f.

By HHH returning, which we are guaranteed from its definition as a
decider.

How the F--- Does the emulated HHH return?

I don’t know, you claim it’s a decider!

 

DDD emulated by HHH CANNOT POSSIBLY reach its own machine address
0000217f.

Only HHH can’t simulate it.
>

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?
 

When HHH is waiting for the next HHH
which is waiting for the next HHH
which is waiting for the next HHH...
we have an infinite chain of waiting and never aborting.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer