Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!news.tomockey.net!news.samoylyk.net!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 ---
 STA
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2025 22:55:12 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <a8392a63b405c294f22e7702336d0ae8b043e6e0@i2pn2.org>
References: <vrfuob$256og$1@dont-email.me> <vsc6qi$27lbo$2@dont-email.me>
 <8a3e7e93e6cad20b29d23405a0e6dbd497a492ac@i2pn2.org>
 <vscegq$2fv3s$2@dont-email.me>
 <26f33bb039fda7d28ae164cfc4d0f582d4698f31@i2pn2.org>
 <vsclsb$2n4jc$1@dont-email.me>
 <36a4c76730b23cf78ddde73c723116b5380973a1@i2pn2.org>
 <vsctnm$2ub5m$2@dont-email.me>
 <4285ea3219a2d5f2d6c52e84697fa4e3d3dc80cb@i2pn2.org>
 <vsd18m$379dn$1@dont-email.me> <vsdjff$3o5ff$1@dont-email.me>
 <vsem50$th5g$3@dont-email.me>
 <77c20f5832db4b47f5226dcb39bd2be7ba107a0c@i2pn2.org>
 <vsf8tv$1i673$2@dont-email.me>
 <5cb726749c8a7457af5da692f77c6a04bc0c7401@i2pn2.org>
 <vsfdqb$1m8qr$2@dont-email.me>
 <733db53c4b67cf1fbbd45fdf503b1d27539b7414@i2pn2.org>
 <vsfigf$1r8rb$2@dont-email.me>
 <bf1e010d6259a4e5e1118f51856f3c72a0094b34@i2pn2.org>
 <vsht8v$90ss$6@dont-email.me>
 <524b81bf3658a42bcba56f807fce28bfea67d36f@i2pn2.org>
 <vsi7tk$jd38$4@dont-email.me>
 <2091bfab5343fe2b078047972ac95b079504b2ab@i2pn2.org>
 <vsks9j$378kj$10@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 03:04:53 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2897382"; 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: <vsks9j$378kj$10@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4495
Lines: 76

On 4/2/25 10:37 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/2/2025 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 4/1/25 10:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/1/2025 8:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 4/1/25 7:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/1/2025 5:36 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/31/25 10:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Simulating termination analyzer Principle*
>>>>>>> It is always correct for any simulating termination
>>>>>>> analyzer to stop simulating and reject any input
>>>>>>> that would otherwise prevent its own termination.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But DDD doesn't prevent its own terminatation, as it calls an HHH 
>>>>>> that WILL abort its emulation and return and answer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You know that DDD stopping running and DDD reaching its
>>>>> final halt state are not the same thing you damned liar.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Right, the DDD who's simulation is stopped hasn't shown non-halting 
>>>> behavior, just not-yet-halted.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You already admitted that you are lying about this.
>>> DDD emulated by HHH for an infinite number of steps
>>> never reaches its final halt state.
>>
>> But that isn't something that happens with THIS HHH, since it doesn't 
>> do that.
>>
> 
> 
> When DDD emulated by HHH for an infinite number of steps
> never halts then as soon as HHH correctly infers this it
> has its basis to reject DDD.
> 

But your HHH doesn't emulated DDD for an infinite number of steps, that 
is just another machine you deceptivly try to call by the same name.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_induction

And induction needs to be based on sound proofs.

Not proofs based on false assumptions.

> 
> DDD emulated by HHH does not reach its final halt state
> with a single emulation of DDD by HHH.

Because HHH stops early.

> 
> DDD emulated by HHH does not reach its final halt state
> with N recursive emulations of HHH emulating itself emulating DDD.

Which doesn't prove anything,

> 
> Therefore
> DDD emulated by HHH does not reach its final halt state
> and can be rejected as non-halting.
> 
> 

No because that isn't the definition of non-halting, and you are just 
proving that you don't understand what you are talking about, but that 
you think it is ok to just lie.

Partial emulations not reaching a final state don't indicate 
non-halting, and changing the input invaldites your logic.

Sorry, you are just proving you are just an ignorant stupid pathological 
liar.