Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Categorically exhaustive reasoning applied to the decision to
 abort
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2024 19:18:28 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <uuffc4$3p7r0$6@i2pn2.org>
References: <utlf69$39fl1$1@dont-email.me> <utlff5$3997r$3@dont-email.me>
 <utlgg1$2o1am$20@i2pn2.org> <utlirq$3dsl2$2@dont-email.me>
 <utmo5e$2plc2$8@i2pn2.org> <utmqu6$3msk5$1@dont-email.me>
 <utnmqm$3tjdn$1@dont-email.me> <utnoks$3ttm3$2@dont-email.me>
 <utns99$2rkld$3@i2pn2.org> <uto24n$3vtt8$2@dont-email.me>
 <utpd7m$dibu$1@dont-email.me> <utsv72$1bgkl$6@dont-email.me>
 <utu29i$1n8qn$1@dont-email.me> <utumq5$1rsiu$5@dont-email.me>
 <uu0p2r$2opup$1@dont-email.me> <uu1911$2seum$2@dont-email.me>
 <uu3vod$3krqk$1@dont-email.me> <uu42t0$3ldlj$3@dont-email.me>
 <uu67j1$8ksq$1@dont-email.me> <uu6j3a$b6gs$2@dont-email.me>
 <uu8dr3$rukj$1@dont-email.me> <uu950v$114hv$2@dont-email.me>
 <uub8u3$1k9b3$1@dont-email.me> <uubrp1$1r54k$1@dont-email.me>
 <uuc1pf$1skhe$1@dont-email.me> <uuc2as$1smok$1@dont-email.me>
 <uuc30i$1smok$2@dont-email.me> <uudqfu$2ckr5$1@dont-email.me>
 <uueho9$2hsd5$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2024 23:18:28 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3972960"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <uueho9$2hsd5$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 2845
Lines: 23

On 4/1/24 10:52 AM, olcott wrote:
> Every element of the set of implementations of H(D,D) that simulates its
> input either aborts this simulation or is wrong.

Yes, every implementation of H(D,D) that does not abort is wrong.

This does NOT mean that every implementation of H(D,D) that does abort 
is right.

Since if H(D,D) aborts and returns to D, that D halts, that shows that H 
did not need to abort it simulation to reach an end statem.

> It also must be the first directly executed element that performs
> the abort or none of them do because all of the H elements in a
> recursive simulation chain have the exact same machine code.

But the BEHAVIOR of the MACHINE being SIMULATED (the actual machine, not 
its simulation) has been established BEFORE H even started its 
simulation, so H was just wrong when it made its FAULTY deduction that 
it needed to abort.

You confuse the simulation of the input, with the factual establishment 
of its behavior, which occurs independently of the simulation, and 
preceeds it.