XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 6/30/2025 2:40 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:   
   > Op 29.jun.2025 om 15:46 schreef olcott:   
   >> On 6/29/2025 5:38 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:   
   >>> Op 28.jun.2025 om 15:02 schreef olcott:   
   >>>> On 6/28/2025 3:50 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:   
   >>>>> Op 28.jun.2025 om 01:30 schreef olcott:   
   >>>>>> On 6/26/2025 4:16 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:   
   >>>>>>> Op 25.jun.2025 om 16:09 schreef olcott:   
   >>>>>>>> On 6/25/2025 2:59 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> Op 24.jun.2025 om 16:06 schreef olcott:   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> None of the code in HHH can possibly cause DDD correctly   
   >>>>>>>> simulated by HHH to reach its own simulated "return" statement.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Yes, exactly, that is the bug.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Recursive emulation is only a tiny bit more complicated   
   >>>>>> than recursion yet no one here seems to have a clue.   
   >>>>>> Do you know what recursion is?   
   >>>>>> (If you don't that would explain a lot)   
   >>>>> As usual irrelevant claims without evidence. No rebuttal.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Ah so you don't know what recursion is.   
   >>>   
   >>> As usual a false claim without evidence.   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> HHH has a bug that makes that it does not recognise the halting   
   >>>>> behaviour of the program specified in the input.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> If you don't even know what recursion is then   
   >>>> you are totally unqualified to review these things.   
   >>>   
   >>> And since the condition in the 'if' fails, the conclusion is not true.   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> Even a beginner can see that the input is a pointer to code,   
   >>>>> including the code to abort and halt. But HHH is programmed to   
   >>>>> ignore the conditional branch instructions, when simulating itself,   
   >>>>> so it thinks that there is an infinite loop when there are only a   
   >>>>> finite number of recursions.   
   >>>>> But Olcott does not understand that not all recursions are infinite.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> When the measure is whether or not DDD correctly   
   >>>> simulated by HHH can possibly reach its own "return"   
   >>>> instruction final halt state nothing inside HHH can   
   >>>> possibly have any effect on this.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> That you don't know this proves that you are unqualified   
   >>>> to review my work.   
   >>> The failure of HHH is an incorrect measure for the halting behaviour   
   >>> specified in the input.   
   >>> That you do not understand this explains your invalid claims.   
   >>> The halting behaviour of the input can be analysed by several other   
   >>> methods and they show that HHH is incorrect in its analysis.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> No Turing machine can ever report on the behavior of   
   >> any directly executing Turing Machine because no TM   
   >> can ever take another directly executing Turing Machine   
   >> as its input.   
   > There is no need to report about another Turing Machine. It only needs   
   > to report about its input.   
      
   Then the fact that DDD() halts does not contradict the   
   fact that the input to HHH(DDD) specifies non-halting   
   behavior because the directly executed DDD() is outside   
   of the domain of HHH.   
      
   >  In this case the input includes the abort   
   > code and in this way specifies a halting program.   
   > If the simulator is unable to see that, that does not change the   
   > specification, but only demonstrates the failure of the simulator.   
      
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius   
   hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)