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 12:53:43 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <fff376f7fcc1d0fd503c4d27135639e85d42bd7d@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>
 <d036b5c07a45cf0330892bcef03c4df13c878d90@i2pn2.org>
 <vbi02v$1eis0$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 16:53:43 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1176477"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <vbi02v$1eis0$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 6012
Lines: 101

On 9/7/24 12:47 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 9/7/2024 11:30 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> 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!
>>
> 
> Can the outermost directly executed HHH wait for an
> inner one to abort and still terminate normally.
> (a) YES
> (b) NO
>

No, but if your definition of what it is to do is to determine the 
results by a correct emulation, then it must not abort.

Sorry, your problem is your redefinition of the problem.

The fact that it must abort the DDD built on it, doesn't mean that the 
DDD built on the aborting HHH will not halt, because that is a different 
input.

You are just showing your fundamental ignorance of the meaning of the 
terms, and the fact that you don't actually understand the system you built.

DDD without the HHH that it calls, is not a program, and is not what the 
decider is to be deciding on, and thus since DDD includes the HHH, when 
you think about different HHHs, you are thinking about different input DDDs.