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 specifies recursive emulation to HHH and halting to HHH1
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2025 22:27:03 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <56f965a72427cfa32f9030e1b4db19a0bed67a8a@i2pn2.org>
References: <vrfuob$256og$1@dont-email.me> <vs77th$2p360$11@dont-email.me>
 <vs78cu$3ms9k$1@dont-email.me>
 <c2b91231b9052e07b6705250938fb9095e711327@i2pn2.org>
 <vs7kvf$3eal$2@dont-email.me>
 <aeb75b411e9f77c974585181c671a47d03b22078@i2pn2.org>
 <vs7qdm$8dae$2@dont-email.me> <vs7r9b$8ajp$1@dont-email.me>
 <vs92l3$1fccq$5@dont-email.me> <vs93ae$1k9u2$1@dont-email.me>
 <vs9g5p$1v2n9$5@dont-email.me> <vs9gcg$20g2j$3@dont-email.me>
 <vs9h9o$23cav$2@dont-email.me> <vs9hh3$20g2j$6@dont-email.me>
 <vs9jie$23cav$4@dont-email.me> <vs9kb1$26cg5$2@dont-email.me>
 <vs9pni$27rl4$9@dont-email.me>
 <3ade9e84224ba9b99c7363e0e9b69181804b7daa@i2pn2.org>
 <vsc2fd$1vihj$2@dont-email.me>
 <e1da7d564873d36f88e119fbbbdafd8c6b0f675e@i2pn2.org>
 <vsc9o7$2bk3d$2@dont-email.me> <vsdjis$3o5ff$2@dont-email.me>
 <vselvf$th5g$2@dont-email.me>
 <b73ee5d80df9b180d6345bb08b6b5454947601cb@i2pn2.org>
 <vsf3tq$1crun$3@dont-email.me>
 <707bca57b63b6c88cc64dbaac740c678d1503048@i2pn2.org>
 <vsko0p$378kj$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2025 02:27:21 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2894062"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vsko0p$378kj$3@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4088
Lines: 51

On 4/2/25 9:24 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/2/2025 9:11 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Mon, 31 Mar 2025 17:11:05 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 3/31/2025 3:33 PM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Mon, 31 Mar 2025 13:13:04 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> On 3/31/2025 3:26 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> But we all agree that HHH fails to reach the end of the simulation of
>>>>>> this finite recursion. An end that exists as proven by direct
>>>>>> execution and world class simulators. Why repeating this agreement as
>>>>>> if someone denies it?
>>>>> Because DDD calls HHH(DDD) in recursive emulation DDD EMULATED BY HHH
>>>>> CANNOT POSSIIBLY HALT.
>>>> That is the failure.
>>> Non-halting is always construed as the failure of the input.
> 
>> What the fuck. A halt *decider* is supposed to halt, even on non-halting
>> inputs.
>>
> 
> HHH(DDD) has halted since its original version H(P)
> several years ago. DDD emulated by HHH could not
> possibly halt since its original version P emulated
> by H several years ago.

And thus the HHH that DDD calls always returns to it when properly emulated.

> 
> On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>  > ... PO really /has/ an H (it's
>  > trivial to do for this one case) that
>  > correctly determines that P(P)
>  > *would* never stop running *unless* aborted.
> 
> 

WHich, as Ben has pointed out, your making this quote it just proof that 
you are just a blantant liar, as you are taking it out of context.

He is pointing out that in Olcott-Computations Theory with 
Olcott-Programs and Olcott-Halting, none of which match the actual 
normal theory, you have defined a system that P(P) will not halt running 
unless aborted as Olcott-programs don't need to include the code they use.

THe problem is that Olcott-Machines don't form a Turing-Complete 
computation system (or possibly even a usable computation system for 
anything practical) so the halting problem you claim to talk about 
doesn't even apply to it.

Sorry, you are still just proving you are nothing but a ignorant and 
stupid pathological liar that doesn't care about what is actually true, 
or even know what that means.