Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH

On Sat, 24 May 2025 08:21:53 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
 

On 7/1/24 11:15 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/1/2024 10:02 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 01.jul.2024 om 16:35 schreef olcott:

On 7/1/2024 9:27 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 01.jul.2024 om 14:57 schreef olcott:

On 7/1/2024 3:27 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 30.jun.2024 om 19:25 schreef olcott:

On 6/30/2024 3:42 AM, joes wrote:
>

No, I mean: why does the inner simulator repeat instead of
aborting,
the same as the outer one does?
>

Technically it is called detecting a repeating state.

Yeah, I know. My point is: all recursive calls both enter and
detect a repeating state.
>
>

The inner ones always see one less execution trace than the next
outer one, thus could only meet their abort criteria after they
have already been aborted.
>
>

Which indicates that they were aborted too soon, showing that the
emulation was incorrect.

>
Unless the outer HHH aborts its simulation after some fixed number
of correct emulations or none of the HHH ever aborts and HHH never
stops running.

>
But that does not make the result of the abort correct.

>
>

Not aborting will loop infinitely.

>
      If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
      until H correctly determines that its simulated D would
      never stop running unless aborted
>
THEN H IS NECESSARILY CORRECT TO ABORT THEN H IS NECESSARILY CORRECT
TO ABORT THEN H IS NECESSARILY CORRECT TO ABORT

>
It is inevitable to abort, but that does not make the simulation
correct, because:
>
>

Of every possibility that can possibly be is is absolutely not
inevitable to abort.

>
But only ONE *IS* the HHH that is in Halt7.c
>
Without that definition, DDD can't exist.
>
>

DDD correctly emulated by HHH is either aborted at some point or
crashes due to out-of-memory error.

>
But for DDD to exist to be correctly simulated, a SPECIFIC HHH needs to
be defined, That is the HHH In Halt7.c per you own stipulation. Since
that aborts, that is what HHH does, or you are just admitting to being a
liar.
>
Of course, you also contradict yourself, by also saying that DDD isn't a
program, because you can't let it include that code of HHH limiting what
HHH can be, in which case NO HHH can correct simulate that which isn't a
program.
>
>

You just aren't very good at these things are you?

>
It seems the problem is at Peter's end, as he has broken his system with
conttadiction, becuase he has refused to learn the meaning of the words,
lie Program, or correct simulation.
>
>

>

Aborting will abort too soon. Both cases are incorrect.
>
>

It doesn't seem like you care about the truth.
>
>

There is no passing the guy in front of you if you both continue to
run at the exact same speed, he will always be ahead of you.
>
>

But shooting his tyres is also incorrect.

>
>

>

 Why are you replying to a post from January 2024? You have lost the plot,
mate -- get a proper fucking hobby already.
 /Flibble