Re: Defining a correct simulating halt decider

On 9/7/24 1:24 PM, olcott wrote:

On 9/7/2024 11:53 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 9/7/24 12:47 PM, olcott wrote:

On 9/7/2024 11:30 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 9/7/24 12:23 PM, olcott wrote:

On 9/7/2024 11:20 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 9/7/24 11:47 AM, olcott wrote:

On 9/7/2024 10:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 9/7/24 11:14 AM, olcott wrote:

On 9/7/2024 10:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

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.
>

>
That is NOT what Joes has been proposing.
Joes has been proposing that each HHH in the recursive chain
can wait until the next one aborts and that the abort will
still occur at the end of this infinite chain.
>

>
No, he is pointing out that get the right answer, each HHH NEEDS to wait for the previous one to get the right answer.
>
But, if to do so, it results in the definition of HHH that just never aborts and thus HHH isn't a decider.
>

>
Not He, and stupidly waiting forever is stupid.
>
>

>
So, what do you think HHH can do to get the right answer,

>
No dishonestly changing the subject.
The subject is that Joes is wrong that HHH can wait
on another HHH to abort.
>
>

>
But it isn't a changing of the subject!
>

>
Can the outermost directly executed HHH wait for an
inner one to abort and still terminate normally.
(a) YES
(b) NO
>

>
No,

 Joes cannot understand that.
 

No *YOU* don't understand that he isn't worrying about if HHH can terminate normally, but is talking about what it needs to do to meet its requirements to decide correctly.
That fact that *YOU* give it incompatible requirements that makes the actual program impossible isn't his problem.
You asked him how to get the right answer, and to do that, it needs to keep on emulating because to stop is just to admit you can't get the right answer.
Not getting the wrong answer is closer to getting the right answer than getting a wrong answer, so continuing to emulate, even if that makes you go on forever is "better" than aborting and getting the wrong answer.
Sorry, you are just showing your ignorance of what you are trying to talk about.