XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 8/2/2025 8:07 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 8/1/25 9:49 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 8/1/2025 7:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> On 8/1/25 8:07 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>> On 8/1/2025 6:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>> On 8/1/25 7:38 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 8/1/2025 6:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 8/1/25 6:54 PM, olcott wrote:>>   
   >>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by embedded_H determines the   
   >>>>>>>> behavior that *THE ACTUAL INPUT* to embedded_H   
   >>>>>>>> specifies. Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is not and cannot possibly be   
   >>>>>>>> *AN ACTUAL INPUT* to embedded_H so its differing   
   >>>>>>>> behavior *DOES NOT COUNT*.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> NO!!!!   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> By that standard, any input could mean anything becuase the   
   >>>>>>> machine it is being given can do whatever it wants with it.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.∞   
   >>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn   
   >>>>>> (a) Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ⟩   
   >>>>>> (b) Ĥ invokes embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩   
   >>>>>> (c) embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Yes if you ignore that I said that Ĥ.embedded_H   
   >>>>>> is based on a UTM and ignore the above is the   
   >>>>>> definition of machine Ĥ that could be true.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> "Based on" does not mean *IS*   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> If you add code to the original UTM, then it no longer is a UTM,   
   >>>>> and its partial simulation is not determative.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> *That is your one huge mistake*   
   >>>> As soon as the repeating pattern emerges then   
   >>>> this repeating pattern *is* determinative.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> But there is no finite pattern that shows non-halting in the   
   >>> simulation of DDD.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> void DDD()   
   >> {   
   >>    HHH(DDD);   
   >>    return;   
   >> }   
   >>   
   >> HHH simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD)   
   >> that simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD)   
   >> that simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD)   
   >> that simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD)   
   >> that simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD)   
   >> that simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD)   
   >> that simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD)   
   >> that simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD)   
   >> that simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD)   
   >>   
   >> This is stipulated by the basic structure   
   >> of the relationship between DDD and each HHH.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >   
   > Then HHH can never abort its simulation to return 0   
   >   
      
   As soon as HHH recognizes the repeating pattern it can   
   kill the entire simulated process and reject DDD. There   
   is no stack unrolling because the process that would do   
   that has been killed.   
      
   --   
   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)