Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<vbhqle$1dpc0$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Defining a correct simulating halt decider Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2024 10:14:54 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 48 Message-ID: <vbhqle$1dpc0$1@dont-email.me> References: <vb4plc$2tqeg$1@dont-email.me> <vb6o5t$3a95s$1@dont-email.me> <vb71a3$3b4ub$4@dont-email.me> <vbbmuc$8nbb$1@dont-email.me> <vbcbe4$bdtb$3@dont-email.me> <cb6a625f1737dafed130e2bdad14395d95566ba1@i2pn2.org> <vbcl61$d8p0$1@dont-email.me> <e097e72a4319eb72e8663d055aa54d69af610831@i2pn2.org> <vbcnjk$dr54$1@dont-email.me> <5d7b0659450f58aec28d4f49b1b59982cedfc694@i2pn2.org> <vbcp2d$e330$1@dont-email.me> <70a0b7e4bd0a0129649d8e77cdc36339bd74d6a5@i2pn2.org> <vbhl0e$1c7u5$6@dont-email.me> <4478821a37cfd3f24201caee13e8eb0abfe09c9c@i2pn2.org> <vbhpeq$1djl5$1@dont-email.me> <2ce63f5729cca1e2a878ee96224e4504ce974957@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2024 17:14:54 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="fc36cd944b9fa7fa30157002795d809b"; logging-data="1500544"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18itX9WkRQshse7OXlvJ3ex" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:wmYaxGuAeEZzpOyfYj2PRWx6Eng= In-Reply-To: <2ce63f5729cca1e2a878ee96224e4504ce974957@i2pn2.org> Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 3780 On 9/7/2024 10:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 9/7/24 10:54 AM, olcott wrote: >> On 9/7/2024 9:46 AM, joes wrote: >>> Am Sat, 07 Sep 2024 08:38:22 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>> On 9/5/2024 12:22 PM, joes wrote: >>>>> Am Thu, 05 Sep 2024 12:17:01 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>> On 9/5/2024 11:56 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>> Am Thu, 05 Sep 2024 11:52:04 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>> On 9/5/2024 11:34 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>> Am Thu, 05 Sep 2024 11:10:40 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>> On 9/5/2024 10:57 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Am Thu, 05 Sep 2024 08:24:20 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/5/2024 2:34 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-09-03 13:00:50 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2024 5:25 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-09-02 16:38:03 +0000, olcott said: >>> >>>>>>>> The directly executed HHH correctly determines that its emulated >>>>>>>> DDD >>>>>>>> must be aborted because DDD keeps *THE EMULATED HHH* stuck in >>>>>>>> recursive emulation. >>>>>>> Why doesn’t the simulated HHH abort? >>>>>> The first HHH cannot wait for its HHH to abort which is waiting for >>>>>> its HHH to abort on and on with no HHH ever aborting. >>>>> But why does HHH halt and return that itself doesn’t halt? >>>> When HHH is waiting for the next HHH which is waiting for the next HHH >>>> which is waiting for the next HHH... >>>> we have an infinite chain of waiting and never aborting. >>> Except for the outermost one. >>> >> >> When the outermost HHH is waiting for its emulated HHH >> to abort and this emulated HHH is waiting on its emulated >> HHH to abort on and on forever waiting and none ever abort. >> > > Which only happens if HHH is defined in a way that it never aborts this > simulaiton, and that HHH isn't a correct decider. > That is NOT what Joes has been proposing. Joes has been proposing that each HHH in the recursive chain can wait until the next one aborts and that the abort will still occur at the end of this infinite chain. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer