Re: Defining a correct simulating halt decider

On 9/9/24 2:55 PM, olcott wrote:

On 9/9/2024 6:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

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.

 Thus must be aborted and is necessarily correct to report non-halting.
 

Nope, just proves you are nothing but a ingorant lying idiot.
The proof is that HHH can't emulate the input to the end.
The claim is that the input, correctly emulated, won't reach an end without being aborted.
If HHH aborts, it fails to correctly emulate the input, but the correct emulation of it will reach the end.
The fact that you don't understand the difference between the partial (and thus not correct) and the actual behavior of a real correct emulation just proves your ignorance of what you talk about.