Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: key error in all the proofs --- Correction of Fred
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 16:47:45 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <e9c7ddb8dc4b4b03399d064d634f11297501e49d@i2pn2.org>
References: <v8jh7m$30k55$1@dont-email.me> <v9dgvl$3d1an$1@dont-email.me>
	<d289636b1d244acaf00108f46df093a9fd5aa27c@i2pn2.org>
	<v9dk2j$3dp9h$1@dont-email.me>
	<8318f5969aa3074e542747fe6ba2916d7f599bde@i2pn2.org>
	<TyKdnc3hCNvmUyf7nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
	<v9ekta$3necg$1@dont-email.me>
	<2f8c1b0943d03743fe9894937092bc2832e0a029@i2pn2.org>
	<v9fn50$3ta4u$2@dont-email.me> <v9hmfc$c71c$1@dont-email.me>
	<v9ic89$f16v$6@dont-email.me>
	<06ea0f3a1ff938643b3dfefdf62af15559593733@i2pn2.org>
	<v9iqgc$go4j$2@dont-email.me>
	<LcucnRYb5ZiYhyD7nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
	<v9j6ci$jo32$1@dont-email.me> <v9kdp9$srkm$1@dont-email.me>
	<v9ku3k$v95g$1@dont-email.me> <v9nbqr$1dmui$1@dont-email.me>
	<v9nf3o$1dvef$3@dont-email.me> <v9nkhd$1ertd$1@dont-email.me>
	<v9nmj5$1f34m$1@dont-email.me>
	<6590517a070695b81751db1b64c3d26019ee9b13@i2pn2.org>
	<v9nog5$1fe76$1@dont-email.me>
	<34a22fd138e2e1e41a4dd29cd6c9016064e2343c@i2pn2.org>
	<v9npus$1flup$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 16:47:45 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2749386"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 3249
Lines: 31

Am Fri, 16 Aug 2024 10:07:08 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 8/16/2024 9:59 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Fri, 16 Aug 2024 09:42:13 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 8/16/2024 9:28 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 8/16/24 10:09 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 8/16/2024 8:34 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-08-16 12:02:00 +0000, olcott said:
>> 
>>>>> Unless an unlimited emulation of DDD by HHH can reach the "return"
>>>>> instruction of DDD it is construed that this instance of DDD never
>>>>> halts.
>>>> But that also construes that HHH is a program that DOES an unlimited
>>>> emulation of DDD, and thus isn't a decider
>>> Not at all. never has.
>> Yes, because DDD is defined to call its simulator. If you change the
>> simulator to abort, you also change the simulated HHH. Nobody cares
>> about HHH aborting a pure simulator.

>>> HHH must predict what the behavior of an unlimited simulation would
>>> be.
>> The HHH that aborts must predict what DDD calling an aborting HHH does
> NOT AT ALL, NEVER HAS.
> PREDICT WHAT THE BEHAVIOR WOULD BE
> IF IT WAS AN UNLIMITED EMULATION 
Yes, an unlimited simulation of an aborting HHH. This simulation does
not need to be aborted, because the simulated HHH halts.

>> halting. It's fine if it aborts, as long as it gives the correct
>> result.
-- 
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.