Re: DD correctly simulated by HH --- never stops running without aborting its simulation

Op 06.jun.2024 om 20:35 schreef olcott:

<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 words10/13/2022>
 *Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever*
*stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH*
 _DD()
[00001e12] 55         push ebp
[00001e13] 8bec       mov  ebp,esp
[00001e15] 51         push ecx
[00001e16] 8b4508     mov  eax,[ebp+08]
[00001e19] 50         push eax      ; push DD
[00001e1a] 8b4d08     mov  ecx,[ebp+08]
[00001e1d] 51         push ecx      ; push DD
[00001e1e] e85ff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH
 

Olcott has proven himself that HH reports false negatives, with the following example:
        typedef int (*ptr)();  // ptr is pointer to int function in C
        int H(ptr p, ptr i);
        int main()
        {
          return H(main, 0);
        }
He proved that main halts and that H reports non-halting.
So, it should be no surprise that he finds other false negatives, like DD here.
Already earlier he claimed that his decider does not decide not about reality (the direct execution), but about its own decision process (the simulation). Another reason to expect false negatives. This makes his decider very uninteresting. Who wants to know whether a decider decides that its own process is correct? This is trivially correct. Just like the sentence "This sentence is true.": it might be true, but it is not informative.