XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 8/1/2025 4:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 8/1/25 5:08 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 8/1/2025 3:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> On 8/1/25 4:33 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>> In other words neither Ĥ nor any human being   
   >>>> could possibly see the repeating sequence even   
   >>>> after it has repeated 100 million times?   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> Doesn't matter if is can determine what will happen, to correctly   
   >>> simulate the behavior, you have to do it.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> It seems that even after hundreds of corrections   
   >> you still do not understand that this infinite   
   >> sequence can be correctly detected in finite steps.   
   >>   
   >   
   > And you don't get that BY detecting that pattern, and putting that code   
   > into HHH, you put it into the code of the DDD that you are simulating,   
   > and it is no longer a non-halting pattern. It is only a non-hatling   
   > pattern if the HHH in the pattern will never abort its simulation.   
   >   
      
   When you intentionally define halting as stops running   
   for any reason this would be correct.   
      
   Since you know that this is not the correct way to   
   define halting, why do you define it that way?   
      
   --   
   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)