Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message_ID Provided
Date: Sat, 18 May 2024 14:57:29 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 38
Message-ID: <v2b179$2u8oi$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v0k4jc$laej$1@dont-email.me> <v0l11u$ussl$1@dont-email.me>
 <v0lh24$123q3$1@dont-email.me> <v0lic7$2g492$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v0lkas$12q0o$3@dont-email.me> <v0loq2$2g493$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v0lq7d$14579$2@dont-email.me> <v0ls98$2g492$7@i2pn2.org>
 <v0m29q$166o1$1@dont-email.me> <v0m37e$2gl1e$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v0m3v5$16k3h$1@dont-email.me> <v0m55t$2gl1f$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v0m5sn$172p4$1@dont-email.me> <v0m7em$2gl1f$5@i2pn2.org>
 <v0m7tq$17dpv$1@dont-email.me> <v0m8g9$2gl1e$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v0m978$17k7o$3@dont-email.me> <v0mko6$2hf3s$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v0n59h$1h98e$1@dont-email.me> <v0o037$2j1tu$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v0oc65$1q3aq$3@dont-email.me> <v0p9ts$2ki5r$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v0q1rk$2a3u1$1@dont-email.me> <v0qkti$2m1nf$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v0r4a3$2hb7o$6@dont-email.me> <v0rsbr$2m1nf$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v0segm$2v4oq$1@dont-email.me> <v0t8o9$2p3ri$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v0tpjf$3881i$5@dont-email.me> <v0ulma$2qov4$1@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 18 May 2024 21:57:29 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="95afb1fc0a4871125108def5044e156a";
	logging-data="3089170"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18oLJhLsBQfwpEM0zRu1Dpk"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:hYgGEWi90+bkZH2lui6MNk0VAoQ=
In-Reply-To: <v0ulma$2qov4$1@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3689

On 5/1/2024 7:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> The second method uses the fact that you have not restricted what H is 
> allowed to do, and thus H can remember that it is simulating, and if a 
> call to H shows that it is currently doing a simulation, just 
> immediately return 0. 

Nice try but this has no effect on any D correctly simulated by H.
When the directly executed H aborts its simulation it only returns
to whatever directly executed it.

If the directly executed outermost H does not abort then none of
the inner simulated ones abort because they are the exact same code.
When the directly executed outermost H does abort it can only return
to its own caller.

> Thus, H can actually correct simulate the 
> instruction at the call to H, as they will execute just a few 
> instructions testing that condition and returning, and thus not run into 
> the problem you ran into where H just couldn't simulate itself because 
> it got bogged down.
> 
> In this case it is actually true that the direct execution of D(D) 
> differs from the correct simulation of the input by H, as H is no longer 
> a "Computation" per the rules of Computation Theory, but you have 
> admitted that you are abandoning those, so it doesn't matter (of course 
> that make trying to get your results to apply to something similar 
> harder, but that is why you need to try to come up with some actual 
> definitons.)
> 
> So, by the rules of Compuation Theory, your H is not correct, but by 
> your lack of rules, your conclusion that H can not simulate past the 
> call are incorrect, so you proof is also broken.
> 

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer