Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is INCorrectly rejected as
 non-halting V2
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2024 10:14:20 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <31509fec580221e8209eedfefdd1e1091962ad76@i2pn2.org>
References: <v6rg65$32o1o$3@dont-email.me>
 <97e0632d0d889d141bdc6005ce6e513c53867798@i2pn2.org>
 <v6sdlu$382g0$1@dont-email.me> <v6td3a$3ge79$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6tp1j$3imib$2@dont-email.me> <v6trdu$3irhh$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6tu01$3imib$11@dont-email.me>
 <a177dd76613794d6bb877c65ffe6c587a8f31bc1@i2pn2.org>
 <v6tvpv$3imib$14@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2024 14:14:20 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3137774"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v6tvpv$3imib$14@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3119
Lines: 40

On 7/13/24 9:34 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/13/2024 8:24 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Sat, 13 Jul 2024 08:04:01 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 7/13/2024 7:20 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 13.jul.2024 om 13:39 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 7/13/2024 3:15 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 13.jul.2024 om 01:19 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>> On 7/12/2024 5:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/12/24 10:56 AM, olcott wrote:
>>
>>>> You have a wrong understanding of the semantics of the x86 language.
>>>> You think that the x86 language specifies that skipping instructions do
>>>> not change the behaviour of a program.
>> Do you understand that a simulator that aborts does not run forever?
>>
>>> As soon as the decider correctly determines that itself would never halt
>>> unless is aborts the simulation of its input the decider is required to
>>> abort this simulation.
>> Which decider is aborting here, the simulated or the outer one?
>> A decider always halts, so it cannot find itself non-halting.
>>
> 
> The executed decider is always correct to abort the
> simulation of any damn thing that would cause itself
> to never halt.
> 

But the DDD that HHH was given (which includes the code of the specific 
HHH that it is using) can be properly simulated by a variant of HHH that 
doesn't abort.

The issue is you logic is just invalid because it ignores the 
fundamental property the code does what it does so the only thing that 
causes it to do anytnhing is its code.

The HHH that never halts isn't the same HHH that aborts, and the DDD 
that the two are emulating are DIFFERENT (due to the implied inclusion 
of the code of the HHH that they call), so are not comparable.

Your LOGIC is just invalid as it assume two different things are the 
same thing, which is just a part of the insanity that seems to infect you.