Re: Defining a correct simulating halt decider

On 9/9/24 4:24 PM, olcott wrote:

On 9/9/2024 3:02 PM, joes wrote:

Am Mon, 09 Sep 2024 13:19:26 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 9/8/2024 9:53 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-09-07 13:57:00 +0000, olcott said:

On 9/7/2024 3:29 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-09-07 05:12:19 +0000, joes said:

Am Fri, 06 Sep 2024 06:42:48 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 9/6/2024 6:19 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-09-05 13:24:20 +0000, olcott said:

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:

>

A halt decider needn't compute the full behaviour, only
whether that behaviour is finite or infinite.
>

Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation
Stopped
Hence  HHH(DDD)==0 is correct

>
Nice to see that you don't disagree with what said.
Unvortunately I can't agree with what you say.
HHH terminates, so DDD obviously terminates, too.

>
DDD emulated by HHH never reaches it final halt state.

>
If that iis true it means that HHH called by DDD does not return
and therefore is not a ceicder.

The directly executed HHH is a decider.

What does simulating it change about that?

If the simulation is incorrect it may change anything.
>

PATHOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS CHANGE BEHAVIOR

However, a correct simultation faithfully imitates the original
behaviour.
>

A correct emulation obeys the x86 machine code even if this machine code
catches the machine on fire.

I don’t see an HCF instruction above.
>

It is impossible for an emulation of DDD by HHH to reach machine address
00002183 AND YOU KNOW IT!!!

I know that HHH1 does it.
>

 Right a Bill is guilty of robbing the liquor store because you
saw his identical twin brother Harry rob the store and you knew
that it was Harry that you saw rob the store and not Bill.
 

No, *YOU* are trying to FRAME the DDD that calls this HHH by claiming that it is the other DDD that calls the other HHH that doesn't abort, which isn't the HHH that is currently loaded in the machine.
Sorry, your analogies just prove that you are the liar.