Re: DDD specifies recursive emulation to HHH and halting to HHH1

On 4/14/25 7:50 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/14/2025 4:32 AM, joes wrote:

Am Sun, 13 Apr 2025 14:54:35 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 4/13/2025 9:46 AM, joes wrote:

Am Thu, 03 Apr 2025 16:57:43 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 4/3/2025 1:32 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-04-03 02:08:22 +0000, olcott said:

It is a truism that a correct x86 emulator would emulate itself
emulating DDD whenever DDD calls this emulator with itself.

>
Which does not agree or disagree with my comment nor say anything
about it,
and it doesn't clarify any aspect of your statement that i commented.
If there is any indirect connection to anything relevant that
connection is not presented, leaving your response unconnected and
therefore irrelevant.
So you did not reply to the immediated context.
>

THE FACT THAT DDD EMULATED BY HHH DOES NOT HALT IS NOT RELEVANT TO A
CORRECT DECISION BY A HALT DECIDER?

Yes.

To clarify: that *HHH* does not simulate DDD halting has no bearing on
its direct execution.
>

 THE DIRECT EXECUTION IS NOT WHAT IT SEES THUS
FORBIDDING IT FROM REPORTING ON THE DIRECT EXECUTION.

The direct execution *IS* the definition of the mapping it is trying to compute. (Does the program described as the input halt when run)
It can't be "forbidden", as it is a requirement. Your logic is just based on error.
Deciders don't report on "what they see", they are supposed to report on what the mapping they are computing is.
You just don't understand what you are talking about.
They only *CAN* report on what they can compute.
They *MUST* report on the results of the mapping they are defined to be answering about, even if they can't "see" that.
It means that some mappings are just not computableable, and no decider can compute them.

 

THE ONLY RELEVANT THING IS THE PATHOLOGICAL SELF-REFERENCE BEHAVIOR THAT
THE INPUT FINITE STRING SPECIFIES.

DDD does not „specify” self-reference; simulating with HHH does.
>