XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 8/5/2025 5:53 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 8/4/25 10:05 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)