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: Sat, 7 Sep 2024 13:30:54 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <a7d75cc8a87fd509915090330e035aa39b174515@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$1@dont-email.me>
	<5d7b0659450f58aec28d4f49b1b59982cedfc694@i2pn2.org>
	<vbcp2d$e330$1@dont-email.me>
	<70a0b7e4bd0a0129649d8e77cdc36339bd74d6a5@i2pn2.org>
	<vbcs65$egrs$1@dont-email.me>
	<f4ca32c31d70ce51426c3a731a55012c94b836a5@i2pn2.org>
	<vbetlc$qolr$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2024 13:30:54 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1160898"; 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: 3499
Lines: 43

Am Fri, 06 Sep 2024 07:47:40 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 9/5/2024 2:41 PM, joes wrote:
>> Am Thu, 05 Sep 2024 13:10:13 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 9/5/2024 12:22 PM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Thu, 05 Sep 2024 12:17:01 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> On 9/5/2024 11:56 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>> 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:
>> 
>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>> The first HHH cannot wait for its HHH to abort which is waiting for
>>>>> its HHH to abort on and on with no HHH ever aborting.
>>>> But why does HHH halt and return that itself doesn’t halt?
>>> First agree that you understand the first part so that we don't
>>> endlessly digress away from the point.
>> I smell evasion but fine, I understand that HHH cannot wait.
> Do you really understand this?
That’s on you to believe. I can’t prove it.

> It took far too long to get to this point we cannot simply drop it
> without complete closure before moving on.
I’m a bit surprised that you expect I would suddenly do a 180 in my
argumentation. 

> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>      If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until
>      H correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop
>      running unless aborted then
> Thus this criteria has been met.
> Do you understand this?
No, which criterion? The if-clause isn’t met; it’s only saying a
simulation isn’t necessary for a halting decision.

> We cannot move to any next point until after we finish this point.
Move on to what? I would like some diversion.

-- 
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.