Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Indirect Reference Changes the Behavior of DDD() relative to DDD emulated by HHH Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2024 10:40:36 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <3f559e094d8d1549b2acf1d030e3e51b2ffdb784@i2pn2.org> References: <878qwn0wyz.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <87le0jzc8f.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2024 14:40:36 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="1176478"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 4537 Lines: 61 On 9/7/24 10:00 AM, olcott wrote: > On 9/7/2024 5:19 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >> Op 06.sep.2024 om 13:31 schreef olcott: >>> On 9/6/2024 4:36 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>> Op 05.sep.2024 om 15:48 schreef olcott: >>>>> >>>>> HHH MUST ABORT AFTER SOME FIXED NUMBER OF RECURSIVE EMULATIONS >>>>> AND THE OUTERMOST HHH ALWAYS SEE ONE MORE THAN THE NEXT INNER ONE. >>>> >>>> And the outer one, when aborting after two cycles , misses the >>>> behaviour of the inner one in the next cycle, where the inner one >>>> would see the 'special condition', abort, return to DDD, which would >>>> halt as well. >>>> That HHH misses the last part of the behaviour of the program, does >>>> not change the fact that this is the behaviour that was coded in the >>>> program >>>> >>>>> >>>>> If we have an infinite chain of people each waiting for >>>>> the next one down the line to do something then that thing >>>>> is never done. >>>> >>>> The infinite chain exists only in your dream. In fact there are only >>>> two recursions, so never more that a chain of three HHH in the >>>> simulation. >>>> HHH is incorrect in assuming the there is an infinite chain, but >>>> this incorrect assumption makes that it aborts and halts. This >>>> applies both to the simulating and the simulated HHH. >>> >>> The way it is encoded now there are only two recursions. >>> >>> If we encode it as you suggest the outermost directly >>> executed HHH would wait for the first emulated HHH which >>> would wait for the second which would wait for third >>> on and on... >>> >> >> What is olcott's problem with English? >> If one way is incorrect, he thinks that it suggests that another way >> must be correct. >> I never suggested to change HHH, because there is *no* correct way to >> do it. Every HHH that simulates itself is incorrect. No matter what >> clever code it includes. > > You must be a brain dead moron. > As long as HHH emulates the sequence of instructions > it was provided then HHH is correct even if it catches > your computer on fire. > > > Yes, and as soon as it aborts that simulation to give an answer, it is no longer a correct emulator. You need to make a choice about what HHH is, is it a correct emulator, that creates a non-halting DDD and gets stuck emulating it forever, or is it a decider, that therefore aborts its emulation at some point and returns, and thus makes a HALTING DDD, but it gets the wrong answer about DDD, because it was an incorrect emulator. Trying to pretend that it is both is just lying to yourself.