XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 7/31/2025 7:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 7/31/25 11:50 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >> *We are only addressing this one point in this thread*   
   >>   
   >> On 7/29/2025 11:22 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:   
   >>  > It is a lack of technical ability on your   
   >>  > part which is unable to judge whether such   
   >>  > a correct simulation is possible.  Everybody   
   >>  > else sees that it is not, so further questions   
   >>  > about it are non-sensical.   
   >>   
   >> HHH emulates DDD in a separate process context. When   
   >> this DDD calls HHH(DDD) the original HHH emulates this   
   >> HHH in the DDD process context.   
   >   
   > And that separate proccess, if left unaborted, would halt. But HHH gives   
   > up and aborts it, so the process is Halting, not non-halting.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> This emulated HHH creates yet another process context   
   >> to emulate its own DDD. When this DDD calls yet another   
   >> HHH(DDD) this provides enough execution trace that the   
   >> repeating pattern can be seen.   
   >   
   > But the pattern isn't non-halting by the fact that DDD is shown to be   
   > halting.   
   >   
      
   *No not at all. Not in the least little bit*   
   Recursive simulation is only a little more difficult   
   than self recursion. Do you understand self-recursion?   
   What is the classic example of self-recursion?   
      
   When N instructions of DDD are correctly emulated by   
   every HHH that can possibly exist   
   (technically this is an infinite set of HHH/DDD pairs)   
   no emulated DDD can possibly halt and every directly   
   executed DDD() halts.   
      
      
   --   
   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)