XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 8/5/2025 9:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 8/5/25 9:10 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> 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.   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)