XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl   
      
   Op 06.aug.2025 om 05:47 schreef olcott:   
   > 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.   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)