Re: Hypothetical possibilities -- I reread this again more carefully

Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 22:31:04 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/20/2024 10:14 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/20/2024 8:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/20/24 9:23 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/20/2024 8:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/20/24 8:21 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/20/2024 7:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/20/24 7:06 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/20/2024 6:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/20/24 6:47 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/20/2024 5:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/20/24 5:21 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/20/2024 4:06 PM, joes wrote:

Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 15:05:53 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/20/2024 2:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/20/24 3:09 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/20/2024 2:00 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 20.jul.2024 om 17:28 schreef olcott:

>

(a) Termination Analyzers / Partial Halt Deciders must
halt this is a design requirement.
(b) Every simulating termination analyzer HHH either
aborts the simulation of its input or not.
(c) Within the hypothetical case where HHH does not
abort the simulation of its input {HHH, emulated DDD
and executed DDD}
never stop running.
This violates the design requirement of (a) therefore
HHH must abort the simulation of its input.

You missed a couple details:
A terminating input shouldn't be aborted, or at least not
classified as not terminating. Terminating inputs needn't be
aborted;
they and the simulator halt on their own.
>

And when it aborts, the simulation is incorrect. When
HHH aborts and halts, it is not needed to abort its
simulation, because it will halt of its own.

So you are trying to get away with saying that no HHH
ever needs to abort the simulation of its input and HHH
will stop running?

Pretty much.

It is the fact that HHH DOES abort its simulation that
makes it not need to.

No stupid it is not a fact that every HHH that can possibly
exist aborts its simulation.

I thought they all halt after a finite number of steps?

It may be that the simulation by HHH never reaches that point,
but if HHH aborts its simuliaton and returns (as required for
it to be a decider) then the behavior of DDD

Simulated by HHH is to Die, stop running, no longer function.

Nope, HHH is NOT the "Machine" that determines what the code
does, so can not "Kill" it.

When an actual x86 emulator stops emulating its input this emulated
input immediately stops running.

The input doesn't even run. The simulator is the only thing in execution.

The SIMULATION is an observation of the program, that if it stops
doesn't affect the actual behavior of the program in question.

*If the simulator stops simulating then the simulated stops running*

The simulated program would still be non-halting.

DDD *correctly simulated* by pure function HHH cannot possibly reach
its own return instruction.

Only DDD correctly emulated by HHH maps the finite string of the x86
machine code of DDD to the behavior that it actually specifies.

Almost correct. Other simulators may map it too, to the behaviour
of the direct execution. HHH doesn't.

--
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.