Sujet : Re: Defining a correct simulating halt decider
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 08. Sep 2024, 15:16:30
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <vbkbju$1uqfp$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 9/8/2024 5:05 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 07.sep.2024 om 16:54 schreef olcott:
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.
>
Dreaming again of a HHH that does not abort.
In other words you have no idea what a hypothesis is?
The outermost HHH can either abort it emulation of DDD
or not and either way DDD cannot possibly reach its final
halt state of its "return" instruction and halt.
HHH does abort, therefore it does not wait long enough, but there is no
You seem to be intentionally too stupid to understand that
HHH cannot possibly wait. If it was not intentional stupidity
I would not use such harsh terms.
If HHH waits then every HHH waits and none of them ever abort
because each HHH has the exact same code at the exact same machine
address. It not your fault if you have a lower IQ. It is your fault
for not paying any attention to my corrections of your false
assumptions.
way to correct it. Waiting longer is not a solution. There is no solution. HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly up to the end.
How many times and in how many different way must this be repeated before olcott understands this?
-- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Geniushits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
Defining a correct simulating halt decider
Re: Defining a correct simulating halt decider
