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: Sat, 7 Sep 2024 12:30:42 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <d036b5c07a45cf0330892bcef03c4df13c878d90@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>
 <vbhl0e$1c7u5$6@dont-email.me>
 <4478821a37cfd3f24201caee13e8eb0abfe09c9c@i2pn2.org>
 <vbhpeq$1djl5$1@dont-email.me>
 <2ce63f5729cca1e2a878ee96224e4504ce974957@i2pn2.org>
 <vbhqle$1dpc0$1@dont-email.me>
 <ddd238668be1d2b9e8598893336543864a3b8fef@i2pn2.org>
 <vbhsio$1e1qp$1@dont-email.me>
 <6f80ca08698e36934200fa1e8b134bd8c2b7b181@i2pn2.org>
 <vbhulv$1eco4$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2024 16:30:42 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1176478"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vbhulv$1eco4$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 5263
Lines: 84

On 9/7/24 12:23 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 9/7/2024 11:20 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 9/7/24 11:47 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 9/7/2024 10:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 9/7/24 11:14 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 9/7/2024 10:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/7/24 10:54 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/7/2024 9:46 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>> Am Sat, 07 Sep 2024 08:38:22 -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:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>>> When HHH is waiting for the next HHH which is waiting for the 
>>>>>>>>> next HHH
>>>>>>>>> which is waiting for the next HHH...
>>>>>>>>> we have an infinite chain of waiting and never aborting.
>>>>>>>> Except for the outermost one.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When the outermost HHH is waiting for its emulated HHH
>>>>>>> to abort and this emulated HHH is waiting on its emulated
>>>>>>> HHH to abort on and on forever waiting and none ever abort.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which only happens if HHH is defined in a way that it never aborts 
>>>>>> this simulaiton, and that HHH isn't a correct decider.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That is NOT what Joes has been proposing.
>>>>> Joes has been proposing that each HHH in the recursive chain
>>>>> can wait until the next one aborts and that the abort will
>>>>> still occur at the end of this infinite chain.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, he is pointing out that get the right answer, each HHH NEEDS to 
>>>> wait for the previous one to get the right answer.
>>>>
>>>> But, if to do so, it results in the definition of HHH that just 
>>>> never aborts and thus HHH isn't a decider.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not He, and stupidly waiting forever is stupid.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> So, what do you think HHH can do to get the right answer,
> 
> No dishonestly changing the subject.
> The subject is that Joes is wrong that HHH can wait
> on another HHH to abort.
> 
> 

But it isn't a changing of the subject!

If looking at any other behavior would be a change of subject, you can't 
talk about this behavior being wrong, as it is the only option available.

You are just showing you logical inconsistency. If HHH MUST emulate the 
input correctly, then its only option is to wait.

PERIOD.

I guess you are just admitting that you are stupid for saying that the 
correct response to the definition is wrong, because YOU YOURSELF are 
just too stupid.