Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: My reviewers think that halt deciders must report on the behavior
 of their caller
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2025 16:22:59 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 45
Message-ID: <105183i$2v547$7@dont-email.me>
References: <101nq32$99vd$1@dont-email.me>
 <1ca786773f9ff02718c66e082bbc4182b36732ab@i2pn2.org>
 <104fduv$2n8gq$2@dont-email.me> <104ftep$rafj$1@dont-email.me>
 <104h475$324da$1@dont-email.me>
 <a5f81886d091790185fb6434782dba91ad075fa5@i2pn2.org>
 <104hmkm$35gkb$2@dont-email.me>
 <f4f7163b6a6afcf9886f9d72d5b06075c0592338@i2pn2.org>
 <104i0ar$36mma$1@dont-email.me>
 <775a1f21c8d308989a8ef2a0afaae66c1609912b@i2pn2.org>
 <104jc8l$3jrpl$9@dont-email.me>
 <b8e7a597f05663513a7b08172a8f2f66a696e358@i2pn2.org>
 <104jpu7$3np76$1@dont-email.me> <104jsnj$3o6as$1@dont-email.me>
 <104lbkv$13ioh$4@dont-email.me> <104lr65$7l4q$9@dont-email.me>
 <104o6uv$18h8g$3@dont-email.me> <104ojik$tfr1$1@dont-email.me>
 <104qjpq$1c0m7$3@dont-email.me> <104ruq2$1ml84$4@dont-email.me>
 <a15584099e434c75237baca3805e3086078dd6a3@i2pn2.org>
 <104tu8o$264oq$7@dont-email.me>
 <9a58d9ce85d791c6d0e024a41f16d801dec7dff0@i2pn2.org>
 <1050kgd$2qkok$7@dont-email.me>
 <81c886516949b1192a3cca054a255569ee9f76f5@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2025 23:22:59 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="75904ad06aea4f01a1aa551f9b81a13e";
	logging-data="3118215"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+/9eEx9/Q02QclbWx/cRc5"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:oY0r66pesSfTk4T5KjfkaRkUGZ8=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <81c886516949b1192a3cca054a255569ee9f76f5@i2pn2.org>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250713-4, 7/13/2025), Outbound message

On 7/13/2025 3:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 7/13/25 11:48 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/12/2025 6:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 7/12/25 11:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 7/12/2025 5:52 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>> Am Fri, 11 Jul 2025 16:13:38 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>> On 7/11/2025 3:59 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> As usual claims without evidence. If we do not change the input 
>>>>>>> (which
>>>>>>> aborts after a few cycles o simulation), then the simulating HHH 
>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>> reach the final halt state without abort.
>>>>>
>>>>>> It is a very easily verified fact that the input never aborts 
>>>>>> anything
>>>>>> at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> Only because it is aborted in turn. 
>>>>
>>>> HHH(DDD) simulates its input until it sees that
>>>> DDD cannot possibly stop running unless aborted.
>>>
>>> Then why does the direct execution of DDD halt?
>>>
>>
>> The direct execution is a different sequence of steps
>> because it is reaping the benefits of HHH having already
>> aborted its own input.
>>
> 
> So?
> 

Its nuts to expect the exact same behavior
from a different sequence of steps.

HHH1(DDD)==1 and HHH(DDD)==0 are both correct and
are different because they measure a different
sequence of steps.


-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer