Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Should I quit Richard at this point?

Am Sat, 08 Jun 2024 15:15:45 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 6/8/2024 2:59 PM, joes wrote:

Am Sat, 08 Jun 2024 13:36:04 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 6/8/2024 1:12 PM, joes wrote:

Am Sat, 08 Jun 2024 12:10:33 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 6/8/2024 11:03 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/8/24 11:32 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/8/2024 10:15 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/8/24 11:07 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/8/2024 9:54 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/8/24 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/8/2024 9:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

>
What are all the other HH?

Still waiting on this.

A simulator that simulates something different than the real thing is
not a simulator.

DD *correctly* simulated by HH has provably different behavior than the
directly behavior of the executed DD(DD).

I mean, if one of them must be wrong, it can only be the simulator.

It is of use to the halting problem in that it corrects the false
assumption that HH(DD,DD) is even allowed to report on the behavior of
DD(DD) instead of being required to report on the behavior that the
input to HH(DD,DD) specifies as measured by DD correctly simulated by
HH.

HH must report on the behaviour of its input, which is DD(DD). If it bears
no relation to that, it can equally correctly return either result.

THE LIMITS TO COMPUTATION WILL BE ABOLISHED!!!

Before we can get to the behavior of the directly executed DD(DD) we
must first see that the Sipser approved criteria have been met:

I already agreed to it.

Then you agreed that HH(DD,DD)==0 is correct and the Halting Problem is
wrong.

I agreed that infinite recursion can be detected in a finite number of
steps.

--
joes