Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: joes Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Indirect Reference Changes the Behavior of DDD() relative to DDD emulated by HHH Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2024 14:34:54 -0000 (UTC) Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <0dd6f954f53a4d736d02d0d1c3f3a3e2e7a7d5bc@i2pn2.org> References: <878qwn0wyz.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <87le0jzc8f.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2024 14:34:54 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="920384"; 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: 4796 Lines: 54 Am Thu, 05 Sep 2024 08:48:24 -0500 schrieb olcott: > On 9/5/2024 5:04 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >> Op 04.sep.2024 om 14:37 schreef olcott: >>> On 9/4/2024 3:19 AM, joes wrote: >>>> Am Mon, 02 Sep 2024 08:42:56 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>> On 9/1/2024 5:48 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>> Op 31.aug.2024 om 18:15 schreef olcott: >>>>>>> On 8/31/2024 10:47 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>> Op 31.aug.2024 om 17:22 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>> On 8/31/2024 10:15 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Op 31.aug.2024 om 14:50 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>>>> On 8/30/2024 8:31 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-08-29 14:04:05 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/29/2024 3:00 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-08-28 11:46:58 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>> The direct execution of DDD includes the behavior of the >>>>>>>>>>> emulated DDD after it has been aborted. >>>>>>>>>> And the simulator should also simulate until it sees the >>>>>>>>>> behaviour of after the simulated HHH has aborted its simulator. >>>>>>> People that are not as stupid can see that HHH cannot wait for >>>>>>> itself to abort its own simulation. >>>>>> And people (except the stupid ones) can see that, because HHH >>>>>> cannot wait for itself, >>>>> Because this would require it to wait forever, >>>>> thus HHH knows that to meet its own requirement to halt it must >>>>> abort its simulation. >>>> And because HHH is simulating itself, the simulated HHH also aborts. >>> It can not possibly do this. The outermost directly executed HHH >>> always sees the abort criteria before the next inner HHH sees it. >>> The abort criteria is that HHH sees the DDD has been emulated twice in >>> sequence. >>> When the outer HHH sees that itself and its emulated HHH has emulated >>> DDD once the emulated HHH only sees that itself has emulated DDD once. >> Indeed. A very good explanation. That is what I told you many times. >> The outer HHH fails to see that the inner HHH would abort as well, > IT WOULD NOT ABORT AS WELL. YOU HAVE THE FACTS INCORRECTLY. The input to HHH calls that same HHH. > HHH MUST ABORT AFTER SOME FIXED NUMBER OF RECURSIVE EMULATIONS AND THE > OUTERMOST HHH ALWAYS SEE ONE MORE THAN THE NEXT INNER ONE. If the outermost didn’t abort, the next one would. You can test this by setting Root to a small integer and aborting when it is less than zero (decrementing per simulation level). I would also be interested in flipping the condition, so that only the outermost level did NOT abort. Or maybe a boolean Root being flipped in each recursion. > If we have an infinite chain of people each waiting for the next one > down the line to do something then that thing is never done. If we have an infinite chain of people all interrupting each other, nothing gets done either. -- 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.