Re: Defining a correct simulating halt decider

On 9/7/24 10:54 AM, olcott wrote:

On 9/7/2024 9:46 AM, joes wrote:

Am Sat, 07 Sep 2024 08:38:22 -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:

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:

>

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.

Except for the outermost one.
>

 When the outermost HHH is waiting for its emulated HHH
to abort and this emulated HHH is waiting on its emulated
HHH to abort on and on forever waiting and none ever abort.
 

Which only happens if HHH is defined in a way that it never aborts this simulaiton, and that HHH isn't a correct decider.
HHH will do what it will do, and that is what YOU programmed it to do, so it the results aren't right, it is on YOU for doing your job badly, or taking on a job that is impossible.
If the other one does abort, then ALL the inner ones will also abort, since they are the exact same function, just that abort will occur after their emulation by the outer one happens.
You somehow think that a partial emulation determines the full behavior of the machine emulated, which just proves your fundamental lack of understanding of what you are talking about. This seems to be rooted in the same error that causes you to not understand the difference between truth and knowledge, which fundamentally warps your world view.
Sorry, you are just proving you don't really understand what you are talking about, and are nothing but a pathetic ignorant pathological lying idiot that has CHOSEN to remain ignorant of the truth because it would disagree with what your world view says you want to be.