Re: Indirect Reference Changes the Behavior of DDD() relative to DDD emulated by HHH --- Deception

On 9/8/24 9:58 AM, olcott wrote:

On 9/8/2024 4:25 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-09-07 14:00:19 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 9/7/2024 5:19 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 06.sep.2024 om 13:31 schreef olcott:

On 9/6/2024 4:36 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 05.sep.2024 om 15:48 schreef olcott:

>
HHH MUST ABORT AFTER SOME FIXED NUMBER OF RECURSIVE EMULATIONS
AND THE OUTERMOST HHH ALWAYS SEE ONE MORE THAN THE NEXT INNER ONE.

>
And the outer one, when aborting after two cycles , misses the behaviour of the inner one in the next cycle, where the inner one would see the 'special condition', abort, return to DDD, which would halt as well.
That HHH misses the last part of the behaviour of the program, does not change the fact that this is the behaviour that was coded in the program
>

>
If we have an infinite chain of people each waiting for
the next one down the line to do something then that thing
is never done.

>
The infinite chain exists only in your dream. In fact there are only two recursions, so never more that a chain of three HHH in the simulation.
HHH is incorrect in assuming the there is an infinite chain, but this incorrect assumption makes that it aborts and halts. This applies both to the simulating and the simulated HHH.

>
The way it is encoded now there are only two recursions.
>
If we encode it as you suggest the outermost directly
executed HHH would wait for the first emulated HHH which
would wait for the second which would wait for third
on and on...
>

>
What is olcott's problem with English?
If one way is incorrect, he thinks that it suggests that another way must be correct.
I never suggested to change HHH, because there is *no* correct way to do it. Every HHH that simulates itself is incorrect. No matter what clever code it includes.

>
You must be a brain dead moron.
As long as HHH emulates the sequence of instructions
it was provided then HHH is correct even if it catches
your computer on fire.

>
That is right. The error only occurs when HHH no longer emulates the
sequence of instructions it was provided.
>

 <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
      H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
     specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
 The above refers to determining that *its input D*

Which BY DEFINITION uses THIS H, the one that uses this criteria to INCORRECTLY about its simulation.

"specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations"

But it doesn't, since the condition is not satisfied. The CORRECT SIMULATION of this input does halt, H can not do that simulation, since it *WILL* choose to abort its simulation, since that *IS* the code you have proposed for it.

When people change this to a *non-input D* they are
trying to get away with deception.

But the non-input is the D that calls the H that didn't abort, since it calls THIS H, the one that eventually aborted. You arjust caught in the fact that you are lying to yourself, but you are too stupid to see that blantent lie.

 The pathological relationship where DDD calls its
own emulator DOES CHANGE THE BEHAVIOR OF DDD.
 

But that is just your LYING FALSE CLAIM that you have admitted is such because you can not show the actual instruction that was CORRECTLY emulated that began that difference. Your claims able the call instruction acting differently just shows your utter pathologically ignorant understanding of what you are talking about.
Note, just calling HHH is NOT a "pathological" relationship by most normal definitions, as it is still possible to make an HHH that could get the right answer, you are just too stupid to understand that method, and have just rejected it out of stupidity. The D that does the opposite could be called "pathological" since it makes an input that it is IMPOSSIBLE to build a decider that can decide on an input built from it by that template, but that doesn't make the problem invalid, or the corret answer about the DEFINED behavior of that input. Such an input *WILL* either diffinitively Halt, or never Halt, depending on the algorithm in the decider it is built on, so there *IS* a correct answer to the question, just not one that that particular decider happens to give.
A lot of prospective deciders give wrong answers to the question they might have been aimed out. No problem with the fact that a given machine that was claimed to be a foo-decider for miscomputing the fooness of its input, that just makes it not a correct foo-decider.

Simply ignoring that this pathological relationship
DOES CHANGE THE BEHAVIOR OF DDD is ridiculously stupid.
 

Nope, Thinking thing that have been PROVEN incorrect, like the exact emulation of the exact same deterministic instructions with the exact same inputs can possible create divergent results.
You are just stuck with the problem that you belive your own lies to yourself more than an honest evaluation of the world, which has made you clinically insane.
Sorry, but that *IS* the facts, and your inability to handle them just proves your funny-mental inability to handle the truth. You have made yourself into a pathological liar because your seem to have a blind spot for seeing the truth.