Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Should
 I quit Richard at this point?
Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2024 21:37:03 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v42itv$3du6l$1@i2pn2.org>
References: <v3j20v$3gm10$2@dont-email.me> <v3lcat$228t$3@dont-email.me>
	<v3mq9j$chc3$1@dont-email.me> <v3mrli$chc4$1@dont-email.me>
	<_gWdnbwuZPJP2sL7nZ2dnZfqn_GdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
	<v3nkqr$h7f9$3@dont-email.me> <v3p4ka$sk6h$1@dont-email.me>
	<v3pp7p$v133$8@dont-email.me> <v3s27e$1f9kd$1@dont-email.me>
	<v3sf1n$1gra7$11@dont-email.me> <v3sjo9$1ialb$1@dont-email.me>
	<v3skoo$1iedv$1@dont-email.me> <v3u9ej$1v7rn$1@dont-email.me>
	<v3v6i7$23l33$1@dont-email.me> <v3ve38$259cg$1@dont-email.me>
	<v3vf0b$24orn$4@dont-email.me> <v40u4u$2gi7t$1@dont-email.me>
	<v41k6l$2jqdk$8@dont-email.me> <v41l89$3cg3t$12@i2pn2.org>
	<v41nei$2kanc$8@dont-email.me> <v41oo8$3cg3t$22@i2pn2.org>
	<v41pbc$2kanc$15@dont-email.me> <v41raj$3cg3t$25@i2pn2.org>
	<v41s4e$2l7o9$2@dont-email.me> <v41sjf$3cg3s$8@i2pn2.org>
	<v41tj5$2ll6e$1@dont-email.me> <v41vc6$3cg3t$26@i2pn2.org>
	<v423a9$2m6lc$1@dont-email.me> <v426up$3de90$1@i2pn2.org>
	<v428ak$2no74$1@dont-email.me> <v42d6k$3de90$2@i2pn2.org>
	<v42e5i$2pofv$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2024 21:37:03 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3602645"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 3660
Lines: 40

Am Sat, 08 Jun 2024 15:15:45 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 6/8/2024 2:59 PM, joes wrote:
>> Am Sat, 08 Jun 2024 13:36:04 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 6/8/2024 1:12 PM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Sat, 08 Jun 2024 12:10:33 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> On 6/8/2024 11:03 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/8/24 11:32 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/8/2024 10:15 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/8/24 11:07 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/8/2024 9:54 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/8/24 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/8/2024 9:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> What are all the other HH?
>> Still waiting on this.

>> A simulator that simulates something different than the real thing is
>> not a simulator.
> DD *correctly* simulated by HH has provably different behavior than the
> directly behavior of the executed DD(DD).
I mean, if one of them must be wrong, it can only be the simulator.

> It is of use to the halting problem in that it corrects the false
> assumption that HH(DD,DD) is even allowed to report on the behavior of
> DD(DD) instead of being required to report on the behavior that the
> input to HH(DD,DD) specifies as measured by DD correctly simulated by
> HH.
HH must report on the behaviour of its input, which is DD(DD). If it bears
no relation to that, it can equally correctly return either result.
> THE LIMITS TO COMPUTATION WILL BE ABOLISHED!!!

>>> Before we can get to the behavior of the directly executed DD(DD) we
>>> must first see that the Sipser approved criteria have been met:
>> I already agreed to it.
> Then you agreed that HH(DD,DD)==0 is correct and the Halting Problem is
> wrong.
I agreed that infinite recursion can be detected in a finite number of 
steps.

-- 
joes