Re: Defining a correct simulating halt decider

On 9/7/24 11:47 AM, olcott wrote:

On 9/7/2024 10:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 9/7/24 11:14 AM, olcott wrote:

On 9/7/2024 10:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 9/7/24 10:54 AM, olcott wrote:

On 9/7/2024 9:46 AM, joes wrote:

Am Sat, 07 Sep 2024 08:38:22 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 9/5/2024 12:22 PM, joes wrote:

Am Thu, 05 Sep 2024 12:17:01 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 9/5/2024 11:56 AM, joes wrote:

Am Thu, 05 Sep 2024 11:52:04 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 9/5/2024 11:34 AM, joes wrote:

Am Thu, 05 Sep 2024 11:10:40 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 9/5/2024 10:57 AM, joes wrote:

Am Thu, 05 Sep 2024 08:24:20 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 9/5/2024 2:34 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-09-03 13:00:50 +0000, olcott said:

On 9/3/2024 5:25 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-09-02 16:38:03 +0000, olcott said:

>

The directly executed HHH correctly determines that its emulated DDD
must be aborted because DDD keeps *THE EMULATED HHH* stuck in
recursive emulation.

Why doesn’t the simulated HHH abort?

The first HHH cannot wait for its HHH to abort which is waiting for
its HHH to abort on and on with no HHH ever aborting.

But why does HHH halt and return that itself doesn’t halt?

When HHH is waiting for the next HHH which is waiting for the next HHH
which is waiting for the next HHH...
we have an infinite chain of waiting and never aborting.

Except for the outermost one.
>

>
When the outermost HHH is waiting for its emulated HHH
to abort and this emulated HHH is waiting on its emulated
HHH to abort on and on forever waiting and none ever abort.
>

>
Which only happens if HHH is defined in a way that it never aborts this simulaiton, and that HHH isn't a correct decider.
>

>
That is NOT what Joes has been proposing.
Joes has been proposing that each HHH in the recursive chain
can wait until the next one aborts and that the abort will
still occur at the end of this infinite chain.
>

>
No, he is pointing out that get the right answer, each HHH NEEDS to wait for the previous one to get the right answer.
>
But, if to do so, it results in the definition of HHH that just never aborts and thus HHH isn't a decider.
>

 Not He, and stupidly waiting forever is stupid.
 

So, what do you think HHH can do to get the right answer, which BY DEFINITION is about the behavior of the actual correct (and thus unaborted) emulation of THIS INPUT (which included that it calls the HHH that gives that answer)?
Your problem is you try to justify LYING because the simple method that your HHH tries to use shows that it can't work, so you presume it is just allowed to LIE and look at a different input then the one it was given, the DDD that calls the actual HHH that is making the decision, no some hypothetical HHH that isn't actually what the code says it is.
If you try to define that the emulation *IS* by THIS HHH, then you are just restricting yourself that *THIS* HHH needs to do that emulation which means it isn't ALLOWED to abort, as that is what you defined it to be. Thus waiting forever isn't "stupid" but REQUIRED by your definitions.
Sorry, but you just don't seem to understand that requirements ARE requirements, and you don't get to lie about them. The ACTUAL requirements don't say "emulated by HHH" but are just about the behavior of the input, defined as what it will do when it is run, or correctly (and thus completely) emulated. The fat that the only way you can imagine HHH figuring this out is to do the emulation itself just shows the over simplicity of your mindset.