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: Mon, 9 Sep 2024 22:47:44 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <ebb60509fb2189c75bb9a96465455ae4d3e54802@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$3@dont-email.me> <vbeoge$q2ph$1@dont-email.me>
 <vbeprp$punj$7@dont-email.me>
 <c600a691fab10473128eed2a1fad2a429ad4733f@i2pn2.org>
 <vbh2sp$19ov0$1@dont-email.me> <vbhm3c$1c7u5$12@dont-email.me>
 <vbkdph$1v80k$1@dont-email.me> <vbne7e$2g6vo$6@dont-email.me>
 <9638d86c7409f5f409bd972e5ac0dfff66e4dcce@i2pn2.org>
 <vbnlh1$2hlrm$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2024 02:47:44 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1470041"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vbnlh1$2hlrm$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3834
Lines: 57

On 9/9/24 4:24 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 9/9/2024 3:02 PM, joes wrote:
>> Am Mon, 09 Sep 2024 13:19:26 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 9/8/2024 9:53 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-09-07 13:57:00 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>> On 9/7/2024 3:29 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-09-07 05:12:19 +0000, joes said:
>>>>>>> Am Fri, 06 Sep 2024 06:42:48 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>> On 9/6/2024 6:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-09-05 13:24:20 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>> 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:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> A halt decider needn't compute the full behaviour, only
>>>>>>>>>>>>> whether that behaviour is finite or infinite.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>> Stopped
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hence  HHH(DDD)==0 is correct
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nice to see that you don't disagree with what said.
>>>>>>>>>>> Unvortunately I can't agree with what you say.
>>>>>>>>>>> HHH terminates, so DDD obviously terminates, too.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> DDD emulated by HHH never reaches it final halt state.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If that iis true it means that HHH called by DDD does not return
>>>>>>>>> and therefore is not a ceicder.
>>>>>>>> The directly executed HHH is a decider.
>>>>>>> What does simulating it change about that?
>>>>>> If the simulation is incorrect it may change anything.
>>>>>>
>>>>> PATHOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS CHANGE BEHAVIOR
>>>> However, a correct simultation faithfully imitates the original
>>>> behaviour.
>>>>
>>> A correct emulation obeys the x86 machine code even if this machine code
>>> catches the machine on fire.
>> I don’t see an HCF instruction above.
>>
>>> It is impossible for an emulation of DDD by HHH to reach machine address
>>> 00002183 AND YOU KNOW IT!!!
>> I know that HHH1 does it.
>>
> 
> Right a Bill is guilty of robbing the liquor store because you
> saw his identical twin brother Harry rob the store and you knew
> that it was Harry that you saw rob the store and not Bill.
> 

No, *YOU* are trying to FRAME the DDD that calls this HHH by claiming 
that it is the other DDD that calls the other HHH that doesn't abort, 
which isn't the HHH that is currently loaded in the machine.

Sorry, your analogies just prove that you are the liar.