Re: Defining a correct simulating halt decider

Op 09.sep.2024 om 20:55 schreef olcott:

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.
 

Claim without evidence. In fact the evidence is opposite. It has been proven that when it aborts, it fails to reach the end of a halting program.
HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly up to the end.
It does not help to repeat claims of the opposite without evidence.
No matter how much olcott wants it to be correct, or how many times olcott repeats that it is correct, it does not change the fact that such a simulation is incorrect, because it is unable to reach the end of a halting program.