Re: Defining a correct simulating halt decider

Op 08.sep.2024 om 16:16 schreef olcott:

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?

I do, but olcott thinks a dream is sufficient to prove a hypothesis.

 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.

Exactly, so either way the simulation fails to reach the end.
HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly up to the end.
The DDD based on the non-aborting HHH needs a simulator that aborts.
The DDD base on the aborting simulator needs a simulator that does not abort.
Again olcott's own proof shows that HHH fails to do a correct simulation.

 

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.

Even when artificially placing different programs at the same location, does not make them correct.
The HHH that waits needs a simulator that does not wait.
The HHH that does not wait needs a simulator that waits.
But either HHH cannot possibly simulate *itself* correctly up to the end.
 > 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.

Again olcott thinks that ad hominem attacks will help him when he has no evidence for his claims. What does that say about his IQ?

 

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?