Re: Mike's correction of Joes correct Fred too

Op 16.aug.2024 om 13:59 schreef olcott:

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.

By cheating, using its Root variable, to change the behaviour of the input (a HHH that aborts) to the behaviour of a non-input (a HHH that does not abort).
HHH is coded to abort. Without this Root cheat, the simulated HHH is also coded to abort. That is the input.
When HHH aborts the simulation of itself, the correct simulated HHH is only one cycle away from its own abort and halt.

 *With abort as soon as you know*
*there is never one more cycle to go*

That is the error in your reasoning. You are cheating with the Root variable, so that the simulated HHH does not abort. In this way the simulator changes its input into a non-input.