Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH

On 7/1/24 8:57 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/1/2024 3:27 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 30.jun.2024 om 19:25 schreef olcott:

On 6/30/2024 3:42 AM, joes wrote:
>

No, I mean: why does the inner simulator repeat instead of aborting,
the same as the outer one does?
>

Technically it is called detecting a repeating state.

Yeah, I know. My point is: all recursive calls both enter and detect
a repeating state.
>

>
The inner ones always see one less execution trace
than the next outer one, thus could only meet their
abort criteria after they have already been aborted.
>

>
Which indicates that they were aborted too soon, showing that the emulation was incorrect.

 Unless the outer HHH aborts its simulation after some
fixed number of correct emulations or none of the HHH
ever aborts and HHH never stops running.

But the outer HHH DOES abort its simulation, since you have said it did (and it either does or it doesn't).
That means that the simulation of DDD stops, but not the behavior of the machine that it is simulating.

 There is no passing the guy in front of you if you both
continue to run at the exact same speed, he will always
be ahead of you.
 

Right, which is why no decider like HHH can simulated its input to the return, but that doesn't mean that the behavior of the input doesn't return, since that doesn't stop just because the decider stop emulating it.
Remember, the partial emulation done by HHH is NOT, and CAN NOT be the "Behavior of the ipnut", as it depends on more than just the input, but on what decider you give it to.
Thus, your claims are about improper criteria that are just incapable of being properly defined.
It is like asking for the answer of "What is the sum of two and ...?" (where the ... is not given). THAT is what you question is the equivalent to.
It is a SUBJECTIVE criteria, which are invalid, not an OBJECTIVE one.