Re: We finally know exactly how H1(D,D) derives a different result than H(D,D)

On 3/7/24 10:09 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/7/2024 11:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/7/24 9:18 PM, olcott wrote:

Olcott machines can compute the difference between H1(D,D) and H(D,D)
because Olcott machines can correctly determine whether or not they
themselves were called in recursive simulation.
>
For H1(D,D) and H(D,D)it is the extra inputs of 00001422 and 00001522
For H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ <H> and Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ <Ĥ> the extra inputs are shown.
>
When I keep repeating the above a few hundred more times
you will quit immediately forgetting that I ever said it.

>
All you have done is show why your H / H1 have been disqualified from being Halt Deciders.

 Not at all. Not in the least little bit.
I have proved that a slight reconfiguration of Turing machines
defines a machine that is exactly a Turing machine except can
always correctly determine whether or not itself is called in
recursive simulation.

Nope.
You tried, but failed.
Your H and H1 likely will never answer when given the properly designed H^ input.
You are just a total failure, again.
And are just lying about it because you refuse to face the facts.

 

They are not Computations using only the description of the Computation to be decided on.
>
This PROVES that they are not correct Halt Deciders.
>
And you are proved to be just a pathetic and pathological liar.