Re: Mike's correction of Joes correct Fred too

Op 17.aug.2024 om 05:52 schreef olcott:

On 8/16/2024 9:27 PM, Mike Terry wrote:

On 16/08/2024 19:50, 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.

>
Fred above says that when HHH aborts simulated HHH, the simulation has only one more cycle to go before it terminates.  *HE DOES NOT SAY THAT HHH MUST WAIT ONE MORE CYCLE BEFORE ABORTING*.  And I'm pretty sure he doesn't think what you think he "seems to think".
>

 Both or them are incorrect about this.
Joes is saying that Each HHH has one more cycle
and does not realize this is ad infinitum.
 

That is true only because you are cheating with the Root variable, so that the simulating HHH does not simulated its input, but first changes the input, by changing the value of Root, so that it simulates a non-input, the HHH with different behaviour.
We are discussing a HHH that aborts and when the cheating code is removed, the simulated HHH is also coded to abort, so there is no ad infinitum.