Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT

Op 28.jun.2025 om 14:42 schreef olcott:

On 6/28/2025 3:47 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 27.jun.2025 om 16:26 schreef olcott:

On 6/27/2025 1:42 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-06-27 04:21:01 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 6/26/2025 5:20 AM, Mikko wrote:>>>

In computer science the only measure of non-halting is the
possibility to execute an unlimited number of steps without
halting. An execution of a limited number of steps does not
count as non-haltign.

>
Halting means reaching a final halt state.

>
And non-halting means unlimited execution.
>

>
Not at all. The measure has always been can't possibly reach
final halt state. If it was not that way then smashing a
computer with a sledge hammer would "prove" that an infinite
loop halts.

 

Not at all. The measure is unlimited execution.

 counter-factual
 *can't possibly reach final halt state*
even if correctly simulated forever gets
rid of the psychotic requirement to actually
simulate it forever before we know that it
does not halt.

Counter factual. Only in your dreams.
A correct simulation of exactly the same input by world-class simulators show that this input specifies a halting program. Therefore, the fact that HHH cannot reach that end is a failure of HHH, not a property of the input.
There is no need to simulate forever, because the simulation would halt naturally one cycle later, as proven by direct execution and world-class simulators.
To think that simulating forever is required is indeed psychotic. No-one else but Olcott thinks that it is required.