Re: Olcott seems to be willfully ignorant

Am Thu, 04 Jul 2024 07:48:08 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/4/2024 5:20 AM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 03 Jul 2024 10:51:40 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/3/2024 10:40 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 03.jul.2024 om 16:29 schreef olcott:

On 7/3/2024 9:16 AM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 03 Jul 2024 08:27:40 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/3/2024 6:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/2/24 11:43 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/2/2024 10:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/2/24 11:07 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/2/2024 9:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/2/24 10:03 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/2/2024 8:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/2/24 9:32 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/2/2024 8:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/2/24 9:18 PM, olcott wrote:

And the only CORRECT EMULATION of that program is to
infiniately loop in the emulation.

Not for a freaking termination analyzer nitwit.

Why do they get to lie?

Open question.

Why can a termination analyser emulate an infinite loop as a finite one?

Nothing says that you can't make a halt decider work with
partial emulation for SOME inputs. But the halt Decider just
isn't itself a fully correct emulator.

BEHAVIOR needs the FULL description of what happens.

As soon as HHH has seen a repeating state it has seen enough.

If the state is actually the same. But the simulated HHH sets a
flag or something to keep track if it is itself simulating a
repetition. <- Which it therefore isn’t.

How does HHH track it?

*This is the repeating state*

But not an *infinitely* repeating state.

The criteria that I spent two years writing and the best selling
author of theory of computation textbooks agrees with says nothing
about *infinitely* repeating state.

If the state doesn’t repeat infinitely often, it is not the same state
and does halt.

„State” does not mean calling the same function again. It means the same
stack, registers and memory, or for TMs, same tape and internal status.
If that reappears, there can be no deviation, because those completely
determine program flow.
H does not call D, it only simulates part of it, until before the
recursive call to H aborts.

It took me two years to come up with these words please make sure that
you totally understand each one of them.

I do. It is not very difficult. The point is that H doesn’t simulate D
correctly: D halts, because it only calls H, which halts by definition.

--
Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 16:52:17 -0500 schrieb olcott:
Objectively I am a genius.