Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2

Am Sat, 13 Jul 2024 18:33:53 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/13/2024 6:26 PM, joes wrote:

Am Sat, 13 Jul 2024 17:47:46 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/13/2024 5:40 PM, joes wrote:

Am Sat, 13 Jul 2024 09:31:33 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/13/2024 9:21 AM, joes wrote:

Am Sat, 13 Jul 2024 08:34:55 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/13/2024 8:24 AM, joes wrote:

Am Sat, 13 Jul 2024 08:04:01 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/13/2024 7:20 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 13.jul.2024 om 13:39 schreef olcott:

On 7/13/2024 3:15 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 13.jul.2024 om 01:19 schreef olcott:

On 7/12/2024 5:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/12/24 10:56 AM, olcott wrote:

>

Which decider is aborting here, the simulated or the outer one?
A decider always halts, so it cannot find itself non-halting.

The executed decider is always correct to abort the simulation of
any damn thing that would cause itself to never halt.

Which is definitely not itself. Simulating a decider is guaranteed
to halt. Same as a simulator that aborts.

It cannot abort the simulation of itself because itself is not
simulated.

It certainly is, because the DDD that it simulates calls HHH.

You are thinking of its twin brother.

Can you elaborate? All runtime instances share the same static code.
I am talking about the inner HHH which is called by the simulated DDD.
That one is, according to you, aborted. Which is wrong, because by
virtue of running the same code, the inner HHH aborts ITS simulation of
DDD calling another HHH.

If you have a 100% complete understanding infinite recursion then I can
explain it in terms of much more details, otherwise you can't possibly
understand.

What are the twins and what is their difference?
Please do explain.
Do you disagree with my tracing?

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