Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DDD specifies recursive emulation to HHH and halting to HHH1 ---
 STA
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2025 07:16:15 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <2091bfab5343fe2b078047972ac95b079504b2ab@i2pn2.org>
References: <vrfuob$256og$1@dont-email.me> <vsaam4$2sfhq$1@dont-email.me>
 <vsbi7e$1hblk$1@dont-email.me> <vsc6qi$27lbo$2@dont-email.me>
 <8a3e7e93e6cad20b29d23405a0e6dbd497a492ac@i2pn2.org>
 <vscegq$2fv3s$2@dont-email.me>
 <26f33bb039fda7d28ae164cfc4d0f582d4698f31@i2pn2.org>
 <vsclsb$2n4jc$1@dont-email.me>
 <36a4c76730b23cf78ddde73c723116b5380973a1@i2pn2.org>
 <vsctnm$2ub5m$2@dont-email.me>
 <4285ea3219a2d5f2d6c52e84697fa4e3d3dc80cb@i2pn2.org>
 <vsd18m$379dn$1@dont-email.me> <vsdjff$3o5ff$1@dont-email.me>
 <vsem50$th5g$3@dont-email.me>
 <77c20f5832db4b47f5226dcb39bd2be7ba107a0c@i2pn2.org>
 <vsf8tv$1i673$2@dont-email.me>
 <5cb726749c8a7457af5da692f77c6a04bc0c7401@i2pn2.org>
 <vsfdqb$1m8qr$2@dont-email.me>
 <733db53c4b67cf1fbbd45fdf503b1d27539b7414@i2pn2.org>
 <vsfigf$1r8rb$2@dont-email.me>
 <bf1e010d6259a4e5e1118f51856f3c72a0094b34@i2pn2.org>
 <vsht8v$90ss$6@dont-email.me>
 <524b81bf3658a42bcba56f807fce28bfea67d36f@i2pn2.org>
 <vsi7tk$jd38$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2025 11:19:13 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2804059"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <vsi7tk$jd38$4@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3926
Lines: 53

On 4/1/25 10:37 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/1/2025 8:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 4/1/25 7:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/1/2025 5:36 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/31/25 10:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> *Simulating termination analyzer Principle*
>>>>> It is always correct for any simulating termination
>>>>> analyzer to stop simulating and reject any input
>>>>> that would otherwise prevent its own termination.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But DDD doesn't prevent its own terminatation, as it calls an HHH 
>>>> that WILL abort its emulation and return and answer.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You know that DDD stopping running and DDD reaching its
>>> final halt state are not the same thing you damned liar.
>>>
>>
>> Right, the DDD who's simulation is stopped hasn't shown non-halting 
>> behavior, just not-yet-halted.
>>
> 
> You already admitted that you are lying about this.
> DDD emulated by HHH for an infinite number of steps
> never reaches its final halt state.

But that isn't something that happens with THIS HHH, since it doesn't do 
that.

> 
> HHH sees this in one recursive emulation of DDD.

And if it acts on it, it is the HHH that does that.

> 
> *Simulating termination analyzer Principle*
> It is always correct for any simulating termination analyzer to stop 
> simulating and reject any input that would otherwise prevent its own 
> termination. The only rebuttal to this is rejecting the notion that 
> deciders must always halt.
> 

But DDD doesn't prevent its own termination, at least not the one that 
calls the actual decider HHH. You keep on confusing different version of 
the program DDD (likely because you don't understand what makes a program).

Your problem is that in your insanity you confuse different version of 
your setup as being the same, when you point out there differences.

All you are doing is proving that you are just utter ignorant of the 
basic facts of the system you are talking about, and don't care how many 
lies you telll.