Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: key error in all the proofs --- Correction of Fred
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 21:31:32 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <v9o9ek$1hmvf$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v8jh7m$30k55$1@dont-email.me> <v9de0o$3cjse$1@dont-email.me>
 <v9dela$3cjse$2@dont-email.me>
 <b7c45ea22cb83908c31d909b67f4921156be52e3@i2pn2.org>
 <v9dgvl$3d1an$1@dont-email.me>
 <d289636b1d244acaf00108f46df093a9fd5aa27c@i2pn2.org>
 <v9dk2j$3dp9h$1@dont-email.me>
 <8318f5969aa3074e542747fe6ba2916d7f599bde@i2pn2.org>
 <TyKdnc3hCNvmUyf7nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <v9ekta$3necg$1@dont-email.me>
 <2f8c1b0943d03743fe9894937092bc2832e0a029@i2pn2.org>
 <v9fn50$3ta4u$2@dont-email.me> <v9hmfc$c71c$1@dont-email.me>
 <v9ic89$f16v$6@dont-email.me>
 <06ea0f3a1ff938643b3dfefdf62af15559593733@i2pn2.org>
 <v9iqgc$go4j$2@dont-email.me>
 <LcucnRYb5ZiYhyD7nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <v9j6ci$jo32$1@dont-email.me> <v9kdp9$srkm$1@dont-email.me>
 <v9ku3k$v95g$1@dont-email.me> <v9nbqr$1dmui$1@dont-email.me>
 <v9nf3o$1dvef$3@dont-email.me> <v9nkhd$1ertd$1@dont-email.me>
 <v9nmj5$1f34m$1@dont-email.me>
 <6590517a070695b81751db1b64c3d26019ee9b13@i2pn2.org>
 <v9nog5$1fe76$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 21:31:32 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="905ef987000159018ac19d993d3552cf";
	logging-data="1629167"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19T6TfJWovgpScaNnv4bkOW"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:4kpTubVcijHmLXdYQ6yDKIDkSD4=
In-Reply-To: <v9nog5$1fe76$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 3256

Op 16.aug.2024 om 16:42 schreef olcott:
> On 8/16/2024 9:28 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 8/16/24 10:09 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 8/16/2024 8:34 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-08-16 12:02:00 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I must go one step at a time.
>>>>
>>>> That's reasonable in a discussion. The one thing you were discussing
>>>> above is what is the meaning of the output of HHH. Its OK to stay
>>>> at that step until we are sure it is understood.
>>>>
>>>
>>> void DDD()
>>> {
>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>    return;
>>> }
>>>
>>> Unless an unlimited emulation of DDD by HHH
>>> can reach the "return" instruction of DDD it is
>>> construed that this instance of DDD never halts.
>>
>> But that also construes that HHH is a program that DOES an unlimited 
>> emulation of DDD, and thus isn't a decider
>>
> 
> Not at all. never has.
> HHH must predict what the behavior of an unlimited
> simulation would be.
> 

Yes, and when HHH that aborts simulates *itself* it must predict what 
the behaviour of an unlimited simulation of the HHH that aborts would be.
But we know you are cheating with the Root variable, which causes that 
the simulating HHH and the simulated HHH have different behaviour.