Path: nntp.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!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: My reviewers think that halt deciders must report on the behavior
 of their caller
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2025 16:37:59 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <81c886516949b1192a3cca054a255569ee9f76f5@i2pn2.org>
References: <101nq32$99vd$1@dont-email.me> <104el09$2dpog$1@dont-email.me>
 <1ca786773f9ff02718c66e082bbc4182b36732ab@i2pn2.org>
 <104fduv$2n8gq$2@dont-email.me> <104ftep$rafj$1@dont-email.me>
 <104h475$324da$1@dont-email.me>
 <a5f81886d091790185fb6434782dba91ad075fa5@i2pn2.org>
 <104hmkm$35gkb$2@dont-email.me>
 <f4f7163b6a6afcf9886f9d72d5b06075c0592338@i2pn2.org>
 <104i0ar$36mma$1@dont-email.me>
 <775a1f21c8d308989a8ef2a0afaae66c1609912b@i2pn2.org>
 <104jc8l$3jrpl$9@dont-email.me>
 <b8e7a597f05663513a7b08172a8f2f66a696e358@i2pn2.org>
 <104jpu7$3np76$1@dont-email.me> <104jsnj$3o6as$1@dont-email.me>
 <104lbkv$13ioh$4@dont-email.me> <104lr65$7l4q$9@dont-email.me>
 <104o6uv$18h8g$3@dont-email.me> <104ojik$tfr1$1@dont-email.me>
 <104qjpq$1c0m7$3@dont-email.me> <104ruq2$1ml84$4@dont-email.me>
 <a15584099e434c75237baca3805e3086078dd6a3@i2pn2.org>
 <104tu8o$264oq$7@dont-email.me>
 <9a58d9ce85d791c6d0e024a41f16d801dec7dff0@i2pn2.org>
 <1050kgd$2qkok$7@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2025 20:38:33 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="489404"; 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: <1050kgd$2qkok$7@dont-email.me>

On 7/13/25 11:48 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/12/2025 6:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/12/25 11:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/12/2025 5:52 AM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Fri, 11 Jul 2025 16:13:38 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> On 7/11/2025 3:59 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> As usual claims without evidence. If we do not change the input 
>>>>>> (which
>>>>>> aborts after a few cycles o simulation), then the simulating HHH 
>>>>>> could
>>>>>> reach the final halt state without abort.
>>>>
>>>>> It is a very easily verified fact that the input never aborts anything
>>>>> at all.
>>>>
>>>> Only because it is aborted in turn. 
>>>
>>> HHH(DDD) simulates its input until it sees that
>>> DDD cannot possibly stop running unless aborted.
>>
>> Then why does the direct execution of DDD halt?
>>
> 
> The direct execution is a different sequence of steps
> because it is reaping the benefits of HHH having already
> aborted its own input.
> 

So?

What step in HHHs correct simulation differed from the direct execution?

If there is none, then you can't claim that it was different.

It seems you think you can run a marathon by taking a couple of steps 
from the starting line and then giving up.

Sorry, you are just proving you are just a liar.