Re: Hypothetical possibilities -- I reread this again more carefully

Am Sun, 21 Jul 2024 09:19:43 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/21/2024 4:05 AM, joes wrote:

Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 22:31:04 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/20/2024 10:14 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/20/2024 8:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/20/24 9:23 PM, olcott wrote:

DDD *correctly simulated* by pure function HHH cannot possibly reach
its own return instruction.

Only DDD correctly emulated by HHH maps the finite string of the x86
machine code of DDD to the behavior that it actually specifies.

Almost correct. Other simulators may map it too, to the behaviour of
the direct execution. HHH doesn't.

No decider is ever allowed to report on the behavior of the actual
computation that itself is contained within because all deciders only
take finite string inputs and thus never take a directly executing
process as an input.

Of course. A decider may, however, be given the description of its
enclosing program as input.

A Turing machine can report on the behavior that a finite string
specifies. It cannot report on the behavior of any executing Turing
machine including its own executing Turing machine.

See above.

--
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.