Sysop: | Amessyroom |
---|---|
Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
Users: | 23 |
Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
Uptime: | 40:45:21 |
Calls: | 583 |
Calls today: | 1 |
Files: | 1,138 |
Messages: | 110,393 |
On 2025-08-29, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
When I say something 500 times that does not
count as I said it zero times.
DD correctly simulated by HHH specifies the
non-halting behavior pattern of recursive
simulation.
Using a bit of logical formalism:
correctly_simulated(DD) -> ~ halts(DD)
Given P -> Q, we can derive the contrapositive ~Q -> ~P.
In this case:
~ ~ halts(DD) -> ~ correctly_simulated(DD)
Cancel double negative:
halts(DD) -> ~ correctly_simulated(DD)
If HHH can recognize this repeating state as
a pure function of its inputs then HHH(DD)
returns 0 for non-halting and DD() halts.
From this paragraph we can extract:
returns_zero(HHH(DD)) -> halts (DD)
OK, so we have these propositions together:
1. returns_zero(HHH(DD)) -> halts (DD) ;; from second paragraph
2. halts(DD) -> ~ correctly_simulated(DD) ;; from first paragraph
By the transitive property of the arrow: P -> Q ^ Q -> R => P -> R, therefore we have:
3. returns_zero(HHH(DD)) -> ~ correctly_simulated(DD)
You are logically arguing that if HHH(DD) returns
zero, then DD is not correctly simulated (because it halts).