Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong ---

Op 02.jun.2024 om 20:58 schreef olcott:

On 6/2/2024 1:53 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 02.jun.2024 om 20:42 schreef olcott:

On 6/2/2024 1:36 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 02.jun.2024 om 20:08 schreef olcott:

On 6/2/2024 12:55 PM, joes wrote:

Am Sun, 02 Jun 2024 10:02:54 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 6/2/2024 4:36 AM, joes wrote:

Am Sat, 01 Jun 2024 17:37:28 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 6/1/2024 5:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/1/24 5:27 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/1/2024 4:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/1/24 4:35 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/1/2024 3:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/1/24 12:46 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/1/2024 11:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/1/24 12:18 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/1/2024 11:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/1/24 11:58 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/1/2024 10:46 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/1/24 10:00 AM, olcott wrote:

>

Every DD correctly simulated by any HH of the infinite set of HH/DD
pairs that match the above template never reaches past its own
simulated line 03 in 1 to ∞ steps of correct simulation of DD by HH.

>
But since the simulation was aborted,

>
*The above never mentions anything about any simulation being aborted*

Not simulating an infinite number of steps of infinite recursion is
incorrect. You always forget this requirement: the simulation must be
complete.

>
When HH correctly simulates N steps of DD it is incorrect to say that
these N steps were incorrectly simulated.

The simulation is incorrect if it stops at that point and the simulated
machine is not in a final state, even if it was correct up to that point.
It also matters what steps where simulated, not only if each was correct.
>

>
Introduction to the Theory of Computation, by Michael Sipser
https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation-Michael-Sipser/dp/113318779X/
>
On 10/13/2022 11:29:23 AM
MIT Professor Michael Sipser agreed that this verbatim paragraph is correct
(He has neither reviewed nor agreed to anything else in this paper)
>
<Professor Sipser agreed>
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.
</Professor Sipser agreed>
>
>

What are the sets of HH and DD? I thought they were concrete machines.
>

The infinite set of every HH/DD pair where HH correctly simulates 1 or
more steps of DD is the infinite set that I am referring to.

I see only a single DD. All H that stop simulating D before it reaches a
final state are already wrong.
>

>
There are an infinite number of different HH/DD pairs specified by that
template. One class of them simulates N steps and one class of them
simulates ∞ steps. Some of them play a game of bingo before simulating
any steps. Some of them play a game of chess after simulating N steps.
>
*IN NONE OF THESE CASES DOES DD CORRECTLY SIMULATED BY HH HALT*
>

>
Similarly:
>
*IN NONE OF THESE CASES DOES HH CORRECTLY SIMULATED BY HH HALT*
>

>
*That is NEVER WAS any requirement*
>

>
It was a requirement that HH would halt.

 It was never any requirement that any simulated input halt.
 

IF HH halts, then the correct simulation of HH also halts. If it doesn't, then either the simulation is wrong, or HH does not halt.