Re: Why Peter Olcott is correct

On 18/05/2025 02:10, Mr Flibble wrote:

On Sun, 18 May 2025 02:06:43 +0100, Mike Terry wrote:
 

On 18/05/2025 01:11, Mr Flibble wrote:

Hi!
>
In the case of pathological input, Peter's SHD only needs to report a
correct halting result *as if* the simulation was run to completion:

>
Right.  If the simulation is run to completion, that's like a UTM
simulating the input, and equivalent to asking whether the input halts.
This is the case for all inputs, not just "pathological" ones, whatever
they are exactly.
>
PO's DD() calls an "embedded HHH" which aborts its simulation.  If that
DD is simulated to completion it halts, so that is what his SHD needs to
report.  PO has verified this directly, and has published the traces
showing DD halting when simulated to completion.
>

whether we abort, or continue until we run out of stack space makes no
difference: we are detecting INFINITE recursion which can be viewed as
non-
halting.

>
Eh?  PO does have a couple of SHDs that simulate his DD to completion,
and they all show DD halting!
   There's no infinite recursion, only some level of finite recursive
   simulation.
>
PO gets confused, because his SHD HHH simply /doesn't/ simulate DD to
completion.  It aborts, and then decides non-halting.  That's the
reverse of what you said in the first paragraph.  So your thread title
is misleading - PO is actually *incorrect*.  I've corrected the title to
avoid confusion.

 No, halting the simulation is NOT THE SAME as a halting result of HALTING
for what is being simulated.  I have changed the subject title back, you
jackass.

Where did I say it was the same?  /YOU/ said above that PO's SHD should decide *as if* the simulation was run to completion.  [your highlighting].  If DD is simulated to completion it halts, so by your logic his SHD should decide halting.  Instead it decides neverhalts.
Mike.