XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 8/4/2025 8:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 8/4/25 9:45 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 8/4/2025 8:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> On 8/4/25 9:31 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>> On 8/4/2025 8:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>> On 8/4/25 9:42 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 8/4/2025 7:47 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:   
   >>>>>>> Op 02.aug.2025 om 16:16 schreef olcott:   
   >>>>>>>> On 8/2/2025 4:18 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> Op 01.aug.2025 om 16:46 schreef olcott:   
   >>>>>>>>>> On 8/1/2025 1:53 AM, joes wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>> Am Thu, 31 Jul 2025 19:18:36 -0500 schrieb olcott:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/31/2025 7:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/31/25 11:50 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> And HHH cannot simulate itself to its undeniable halting state.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> DDD halts if it weren't aborted.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> (1) That is counter-factual. Neither HHH() nor DDD() nor DDD   
   >>>>>>>>>> simulated by HHH ever stops running unless HHH(DDD) aborts   
   >>>>>>>>>> its input.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> It is irrelevant what a hypothetical non-input would do. HHH   
   >>>>>>>>> aborts, so DDD and HHH, both the directly executing and the   
   >>>>>>>>> simulated versions halt.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach   
   >>>>>>>> its own simulated "return" instruction final halt state   
   >>>>>>>> in 1 to infinity steps of correct simulation. When the   
   >>>>>>>> simulation is aborted the entire process is killed so   
   >>>>>>>> there is no stack unwinding.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> (2) I have never been taking about DDD() the behavior of a   
   >>>>>>>>>> non- input.   
   >>>>>>>>>> Turing machines are only accountable for the behavior that their   
   >>>>>>>>>> inputs specify, they are never accountable for any non-inputs.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> And this input specifies a program with code to abort, so it   
   >>>>>>>>> specifies a halting program. When HHH does not see that, it fails.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> I discovered a case where the correct simulation   
   >>>>>>>> and the direct execution have different halting   
   >>>>>>>> behaviors.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> No, you dreamed, but could not prove it. Only by twisting the   
   >>>>>>> meaning of the words, you could make yourself believing it.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> (3) When I make a claim about DDD simulated by HHH and this is   
   >>>>>>>>>> changed to the behavior of the directly executed DDD this is   
   >>>>>>>>>> a dishonest tactic known as the strawman error.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> When the input specifies a halting behaviour, it is an error to   
   >>>>>>>>> close your eyes and pretend that it does not exist.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> void DDD()   
   >>>>>>>>>> {   
   >>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);   
   >>>>>>>>>>    return;   
   >>>>>>>>>> }   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> Executed 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)   
   >>>>>>>>>> that simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD)   
   >>>>>>>>>> Then HHH kills the whole simulation process and returns 0   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> Counterfactual. HHH abors after a few cycles, when only one   
   >>>>>>>>> more cycle is needed to complete the simulation, as proven by   
   >>>>>>>>> simulators that do not abort the exact same input.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> The above HHH aborts after ten recursive simulations   
   >>>>>>>> because people here did not understand that there were   
   >>>>>>>> any recursive simulation when I only show one or two.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> That does not make any difference. We also see that you are   
   >>>>>>> cheating, by not only changing the simulator, but also the   
   >>>>>>> simulated input. World class simulators show that the original   
   >>>>>>> input, when correctly simulated, reaches its final halt state   
   >>>>>>> after tree recursion.   
   >>>>>>> The HHH that simulates 10 recursions would also reach the final   
   >>>>>>> halt state for this same input.   
   >>>>>>> But, because your are cheating, you changed the input, which now   
   >>>>>>> needs eleven recursion to halt.   
   >>>>>>> We see in this way, the, no matter how many recursions you   
   >>>>>>> simulate, this method is unable to reach the final halt state   
   >>>>>>> that is specified in the input when we construct a new DDD with   
   >>>>>>> this new HHH.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> 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.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> See, and I thought DDD was a concrete program filled in with   
   >>>>>>>>>>> HHH,   
   >>>>>>>>>>> which aborts after two levels of simulation, not something that   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)