Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Defining a correct simulating halt decider
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2024 19:10:04 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <b438e72145531eb2b7491532180d62ce38dbd723@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$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2024 23:10:04 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1049103"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vbetlc$qolr$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3879
Lines: 55

On 9/6/24 8:47 AM, olcott wrote:
> 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?
> 
> It took far too long to get to this point we cannot simply
> drop it without complete closure before moving on.
> 
> <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?
> 
> We cannot move to any next point until after we finish this point.
> 

But you HAVEN'T proven your claim, only the fact that you are nothing 
but a pathological liar.


Your "H", if it will carry out part two, has neither done a correct 
(meaning complete) simulation of the input, nor correctly determined 
that such a correct simulation would never halt, and CAN'T because if 
your "H" does use the criteria to abort, then the input (which uses THAT 
H) will halt, and thus it is IMPOSSIBLE to correctly determine that it 
never halts.

Sorry, you are just proving how utterly STUPID you are, and that you are 
nothing but a pathetic ignorant pathological lying idiot that doesn't 
understand, and can not (or at least will not) learn the meaning of the 
words he is using.

Those are the VERIFIED FACTS.