Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point

On 6/9/2025 2:56 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-06-09 02:50:59 +0000, olcott said:
 

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
>
The *input* to simulating termination analyzer HHH(DDD)
specifies recursive simulation that can never reach its
*simulated "return" instruction final halt state*
>
*Every rebuttal to this changes the words*

 Being called a "liar" by a liar does not damn.
 As is clear from the above C code, DDD() specifies what HHH specifies
for the case it is called with DDD as the only argument. In particular,
if HHH specifies a recursive for that case then so does DDD. And if
HHH specifies a recursive simulation that can never reach its final
halt state then so does DDD. And if HHH specifies a non-halting
behaviour so does DDD. Etc.
 

That is not quite the way that it actually works.
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
     If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
     input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
     would never stop running unless aborted then
     H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
     specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
DDD emulated by HHH, the directly executed DDD()
and the directly executed HHH() would never stop
running unless HHH aborts its simulation of DDD.
*According to the above criteria that means*
When DDD does abort its simulation of DDD then
HHH correctly reports that its input specifies
a non-halting sequence of configurations.
I am trying to come up with the most reasonable way to
handle a pathological input. The official "received view"
answer is: "nothing can be done there is no answer."
I really don't think that is the best possible answer.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer