XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: dbush.mobile@gmail.com   
      
   On 10/22/2025 5:12 PM, olcott wrote:   
   > On 10/22/2025 3:20 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >> On 2025-10-22, olcott  wrote:   
   >>> On 10/22/2025 2:52 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>>> On 2025-10-22, André G  Isaak  wrote:   
   >>>>> On 2025-10-22 12:40, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>>>>> But that entire bundle is one fixed case DD, with a single behavior,   
   >>>>>> which is a property of DD, which is a finite string.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> I think part of the problem here is that Olcott doesn't grasp that the   
   >>>>> "finite string input" DD *must* include as a substring the entire   
   >>>>> description of HHH.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Furthermore, he doesn't get that it doesn't literally have to be HHH,   
   >>>> but the same algorithm: a workalike.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> The HHH analyzing DD's halting could be in C, while the HHH   
   >>>> called by DD could be in Python.   
   >>>   
   >>> DD does call HHH(DD) in recursive simulation   
   >>> and you try to get away with lying about it.   
   >>   
   >> I'm saying that's not a requirement in the halting problem.   
   >>   
   >> DD does not have to use that implementation of HHH; it can have   
   >> its own clean-room implementation and it can be in any language.   
   >>   
   >> But nonetheless, yes, there will still be a nested simulation tower.   
   >>   
   >   
   > I made sure to read what you said all the way through   
   > this time. DD correctly simulated by HHH   
      
   Does not exist because HHH aborts   
      
   > cannot possibly   
   > reach its own final halt state no matter what HHH does.   
      
   But HHH is an algorithm which means it does exactly one thing and one   
   thing only.  Anything else is not HHH.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)