Re: Defining a correct simulating halt decider

On 9/7/24 9:32 AM, olcott wrote:

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.

 I will never respond to you again in a million
years until after we get closure on this point.

Do that for everyone, and we will be happy.

 I am going to be dead relatively soon thus cannot
and will not tolerate the change-the-subject
dishonest rebuttal that wasted 15 years with Ben.

And it seems it can't be too soon for most of us.
If you would actually TRY to answer the problem presented, maybe you could learn something. But, it seems that isn't your goal, it is just to spout your own lies.

 Do you really understand this?
 It took far too long to get to this point we cannot simply
drop it without complete closure before moving on.
 <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.
 

No. it HASN'T, and that has been explained many times, but you have proved yourself to be too stupid, and too brainwashed, to understand it.
Sorry. you are just a pathetic ignorant pathological lying idiot.