Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<vbi02v$1eis0$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!news.mixmin.net!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 11:47:27 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 86 Message-ID: <vbi02v$1eis0$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> <vbhqle$1dpc0$1@dont-email.me> <ddd238668be1d2b9e8598893336543864a3b8fef@i2pn2.org> <vbhsio$1e1qp$1@dont-email.me> <6f80ca08698e36934200fa1e8b134bd8c2b7b181@i2pn2.org> <vbhulv$1eco4$1@dont-email.me> <d036b5c07a45cf0330892bcef03c4df13c878d90@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 18:47:27 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="fc36cd944b9fa7fa30157002795d809b"; logging-data="1526656"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+zGj4t2HC6PCPWllwtSiYf" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:WLGGoN4asS+dN6NnDSHFhNpJxg4= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <d036b5c07a45cf0330892bcef03c4df13c878d90@i2pn2.org> Bytes: 5377 On 9/7/2024 11:30 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 9/7/24 12:23 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 9/7/2024 11:20 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 9/7/24 11:47 AM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 9/7/2024 10:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 9/7/24 11:14 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> No, he is pointing out that get the right answer, each HHH NEEDS to >>>>> wait for the previous one to get the right answer. >>>>> >>>>> But, if to do so, it results in the definition of HHH that just >>>>> never aborts and thus HHH isn't a decider. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Not He, and stupidly waiting forever is stupid. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> So, what do you think HHH can do to get the right answer, >> >> No dishonestly changing the subject. >> The subject is that Joes is wrong that HHH can wait >> on another HHH to abort. >> >> > > But it isn't a changing of the subject! > Can the outermost directly executed HHH wait for an inner one to abort and still terminate normally. (a) YES (b) NO -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer