Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Defining a correct simulating halt decider
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2024 16:56:44 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <5d7b0659450f58aec28d4f49b1b59982cedfc694@i2pn2.org>
References: <vb4plc$2tqeg$1@dont-email.me> <vb6o5t$3a95s$1@dont-email.me>
	<vb71a3$3b4ub$4@dont-email.me> <vbbmuc$8nbb$1@dont-email.me>
	<vbcbe4$bdtb$3@dont-email.me>
	<cb6a625f1737dafed130e2bdad14395d95566ba1@i2pn2.org>
	<vbcl61$d8p0$1@dont-email.me>
	<e097e72a4319eb72e8663d055aa54d69af610831@i2pn2.org>
	<vbcnjk$dr54$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2024 16:56:44 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="966278"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 2415
Lines: 30

Am Thu, 05 Sep 2024 11:52:04 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 9/5/2024 11:34 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Thu, 05 Sep 2024 11:10:40 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 9/5/2024 10:57 AM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Thu, 05 Sep 2024 08:24:20 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> On 9/5/2024 2:34 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-09-03 13:00:50 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>> On 9/3/2024 5:25 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-09-02 16:38:03 +0000, olcott said:
>> 
>>>>> Show the details of how DDD emulated by HHH reaches its own machine
>>>>> address 0000217f.
>>>> By HHH returning, which we are guaranteed from its definition as a
>>>> decider.
>>> How the F--- Does the emulated HHH return?
>> I don’t know, you claim it’s a decider!
> You KEEP TRYING TO CHEAT by erasing the context !!!
It is very well known by this point.

> DDD emulated by HHH CANNOT POSSIBLY reach its own machine address
> 0000217f.
Only HHH can’t simulate it.

> The directly executed HHH correctly determines that its emulated DDD
> must be aborted because DDD keeps *THE EMULATED HHH* stuck in recursive
> emulation.
Why doesn’t the simulated HHH abort?

-- 
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.