Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Indirect Reference Changes the Behavior of DDD() relative to DDD
 emulated by HHH
Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2024 10:40:36 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <3f559e094d8d1549b2acf1d030e3e51b2ffdb784@i2pn2.org>
References: <va104l$376ed$4@dont-email.me> <va65r8$6ht7$1@dont-email.me>
 <da75188ffa7677bd2b6979c8fc6ba82119404306@i2pn2.org>
 <878qwn0wyz.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <efacnfsQdv-ErlT7nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <87le0jzc8f.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk> <vaj1kd$2kvg9$1@dont-email.me>
 <eca21d905b57bb0b98172c573890b5c8cda91da8@i2pn2.org>
 <vakisq$302rl$3@dont-email.me> <vamjse$3d6eb$1@dont-email.me>
 <van2ni$3f6c0$1@dont-email.me> <vap9r5$3t411$1@dont-email.me>
 <vapv4l$3vumk$4@dont-email.me> <vashj9$grso$1@dont-email.me>
 <vav3iq$10jsm$4@dont-email.me> <vavc3b$11uqn$2@dont-email.me>
 <vavcf8$129qh$1@dont-email.me> <vavdv4$11uqn$6@dont-email.me>
 <vavfjq$12m8t$3@dont-email.me> <vb1gqf$1f566$1@dont-email.me>
 <vb4fd0$2s0uc$2@dont-email.me>
 <b393150191c6d78fc3033efb7c2fb993914ab53e@i2pn2.org>
 <vb9kao$3r9la$1@dont-email.me> <vbbvoc$9s9s$1@dont-email.me>
 <vbccr8$bdtb$5@dont-email.me> <vbeifo$om7b$5@dont-email.me>
 <vbep6r$punj$3@dont-email.me> <vbh9c8$1aru4$1@dont-email.me>
 <vbhm9k$1c7u5$13@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2024 14:40:36 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1176478"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vbhm9k$1c7u5$13@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4537
Lines: 61

On 9/7/24 10:00 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 9/7/2024 5:19 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 06.sep.2024 om 13:31 schreef olcott:
>>> On 9/6/2024 4:36 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 05.sep.2024 om 15:48 schreef olcott:
>>>>>
>>>>> HHH MUST ABORT AFTER SOME FIXED NUMBER OF RECURSIVE EMULATIONS
>>>>> AND THE OUTERMOST HHH ALWAYS SEE ONE MORE THAN THE NEXT INNER ONE.
>>>>
>>>> And the outer one, when aborting after two cycles , misses the 
>>>> behaviour of the inner one in the next cycle, where the inner one 
>>>> would see the 'special condition', abort, return to DDD, which would 
>>>> halt as well.
>>>> That HHH misses the last part of the behaviour of the program, does 
>>>> not change the fact that this is the behaviour that was coded in the 
>>>> program
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> The infinite chain exists only in your dream. In fact there are only 
>>>> two recursions, so never more that a chain of three HHH in the 
>>>> simulation.
>>>> HHH is incorrect in assuming the there is an infinite chain, but 
>>>> this incorrect assumption makes that it aborts and halts. This 
>>>> applies both to the simulating and the simulated HHH.
>>>
>>> The way it is encoded now there are only two recursions.
>>>
>>> If we encode it as you suggest the outermost directly
>>> executed HHH would wait for the first emulated HHH which
>>> would wait for the second which would wait for third
>>> on and on...
>>>
>>
>> What is olcott's problem with English?
>> If one way is incorrect, he thinks that it suggests that another way 
>> must be correct.
>> I never suggested to change HHH, because there is *no* correct way to 
>> do it. Every HHH that simulates itself is incorrect. No matter what 
>> clever code it includes.
> 
> You must be a brain dead moron.
> As long as HHH emulates the sequence of instructions
> it was provided then HHH is correct even if it catches
> your computer on fire.
> 
> 
> 

Yes, and as soon as it aborts that simulation to give an answer, it is 
no longer a correct emulator.

You need to make a choice about what HHH is, is it a correct emulator, 
that creates a non-halting DDD and gets stuck emulating it forever, or 
is it a decider, that therefore aborts its emulation at some point and 
returns, and thus makes a HALTING DDD, but it gets the wrong answer 
about DDD, because it was an incorrect emulator.

Trying to pretend that it is both is just lying to yourself.