Re: Olcott seems to be willfully ignorant

On 2024-07-04 10:20:55 +0000, joes said:

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.

 

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.

You keep stupidly saying that less than an infinite emulation is
an incorrect emulation. Why do you keep stupidly doing that?

Because it is. Partial emulations only show partial truth, and
truth is the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
BEHAVIOR needs the FULL description of what happens.
 

Why do you keep lying about this?
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.
 

*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.

That "halt" does not follow. A Turing machine can execute forever without
repeating its state.
--
Mikko