Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2024 08:42:12 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v5r5p4$1irrf$1@i2pn2.org>
References: <v4vrfg$2793f$1@dont-email.me> <v58m12$8mmo$1@dont-email.me>
	<v59797$brmn$1@dont-email.me> <v5b7nv$qvrb$1@dont-email.me>
	<v5btf3$v0vb$4@dont-email.me> <v5chru$10816$1@i2pn2.org>
	<v5cn01$149dc$1@dont-email.me> <v5ebvr$1hs89$1@dont-email.me>
	<v5efod$1ikpr$1@dont-email.me> <v5ejau$1iq57$1@dont-email.me>
	<v5eup8$1lar1$2@dont-email.me> <v5f1nm$1lp16$1@dont-email.me>
	<v5f246$1m2fl$1@dont-email.me> <v5f3fg$1lp16$2@dont-email.me>
	<v5f3j8$1m2fl$2@dont-email.me> <v5f54f$1lp16$3@dont-email.me>
	<v5f5sd$1mcif$1@dont-email.me> <v5ght9$21jrt$1@dont-email.me>
	<v5h558$24jbd$7@dont-email.me> <v5jcas$2m18t$2@dont-email.me>
	<v5k7ju$2qsdr$5@dont-email.me> <v5mcvo$1cgj0$3@i2pn2.org>
	<v5mklg$3cibm$7@dont-email.me> <v5mo8a$1d3t3$2@i2pn2.org>
	<v5mqge$3e4fd$2@dont-email.me> <v5msjt$1d3t3$9@i2pn2.org>
	<v5mtba$3elj0$1@dont-email.me> <v5n2ah$1d3t3$10@i2pn2.org>
	<v5n2sk$3fm1k$1@dont-email.me> <v5po6i$1h5u1$1@i2pn2.org>
	<v5pp9m$2jk8$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2024 08:42:12 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1666927"; 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: 3449
Lines: 40

Am Sat, 29 Jun 2024 15:03:02 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 6/29/2024 2:44 PM, joes wrote:
>> Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 14:28:20 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 6/28/2024 2:18 PM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 12:53:46 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> On 6/28/2024 12:41 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>> Thanks for leaving the unanswered questions in place, though I’d
>>>>>> rather have you answer them.
>>>>>> Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 12:05:18 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>> On 6/28/2024 11:26 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>> Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 10:25:36 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/28/2024 8:14 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Am Thu, 27 Jun 2024 12:30:38 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>> 
>>>>>>>>>> To the caller DDD, which then returns to its own caller H0,
>>>>>>>>>> which returns „halting” to main… hold on.
>>>> Why doesn’t the first recursive H return?
>> Question still not answered.
It should abort, just like the outer one.

>>> HHH(DDD)
>>> simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD) that simulates DDD that calls
>>> HHH(DDD)
>>> that proves to the outer directly executed HHH that it must abort and
>>> reject.
>> How does it do that?
> Over your head. I have explained it too many times and you just can't
> get it.
No, I mean: why does the inner simulator repeat instead of aborting,
the same as the outer one does?

> Technically it is called detecting a repeating state.
Yeah, I know. My point is: all recursive calls both enter and detect
a repeating state.

> I don't mean "New Jersey, New Jersey".
Please don’t regard me as dumber than I am.

-- 
Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 16:52:17 -0500 schrieb olcott:
Objectively I am a genius.