Re: Mike's correction of Joes correct Fred too

On 8/16/24 2:50 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/16/2024 1:37 PM, Mike Terry wrote:

On 16/08/2024 12:59, olcott wrote:

On 8/16/2024 1:57 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 15.aug.2024 om 21:39 schreef olcott:
>
It is clear that olcott does not really read what I write. (Or is very short of memory.)
I never said such a thing.
I repeatedly told that the

>
*YOUR MISTAKE*

simulating HHH aborted when the simulated HHH had only one cycle to go.

That is WRONG. The outermost directly executed HHH aborts
as soon as it has seen enough of the emulated execution
trace to correctly predict that an unlimited execution
would never stop running.
>
*With abort as soon as you know*
*there is never one more cycle to go*
>
*MIKES CORRECTION OF YOUR MISTAKE*
On 8/14/2024 10:07 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
 > On 14/08/2024 08:43, joes wrote:
 >> HHH simulates DDD    enter the matrix
 >>    DDD calls HHH(DDD)    Fred: could be eliminated
 >>    HHH simulates DDD    second level
 >>      DDD calls HHH(DDD)    recursion detected
 >>    HHH aborts, returns    outside interference
 >>    DDD halts        voila
 >> HHH halts
 >
 > You're misunderstanding the scenario?  If your simulated
 > HHH aborts its simulation [line 5 above],
>
*THIS PART RIGHT HERE*
 > then the outer level H would have aborted its
 > identical simulation earlier. You know that, right?
>
 > [It's what people have been discussing
 > here endlessly for the last few months! :) ]
 >
 > So your trace is impossible...
 >

>
I supposed that I should be annoyed that you deliberately ignore my request to stop misrepresting my views and opinions.  You /know/ I don't agree with how you're misusing my words - but you do it anyway.
>

 Both Joes and Fred seem to think that every HHH can wait for
the next one to abort and one of them will still eventually
abort.

No, the HHH *CAN'T* wait, as it must do what its program says.
It *SHOULD HAVE* waited, as that would have gotten the right answer.
It is just the fact that due to your hopeless intertwining of the decider and the input program, you CAN NOT unravel that and try to look at different versions of the decider by change the code of the decider, but need to make a copy of it with a different name and a different adddress, but you code for your decider uses techniques that break this method.

 Please try and explain to me exactly how your words did
not correct this error.
 If you keep insisting that I am wrong and fail to explain all
of the details of how I am wrong I will continue to assume that
it is your error of not paying close enough attention.
 

But the fact that even with a direct warning that you are misunderstanding, you still go ahead and repeat your nonsense in the end just becomes FUNNY.  :)
>
Of course, nothing I said above supports your claims for what it is saying.  I could challenge you to justify your claims, but that would just waste everybody's time.  You are just intellectually incapable of discussing this topic.  (Not your "fault", you're not being lazy or anything, it's just how your brain is wired.)
>
>
Mike.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>