Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 ---Boilerplate Reply

On 6/25/24 5:22 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/25/2024 3:31 PM, joes wrote:

Am Fri, 21 Jun 2024 12:22:04 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 6/21/2024 12:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/21/24 1:04 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/21/2024 10:25 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/21/24 10:44 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/21/2024 9:02 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/21/24 9:01 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/21/2024 2:44 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 20.jun.2024 om 16:12 schreef olcott:

On 6/20/2024 3:09 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 20.jun.2024 om 02:00 schreef olcott:

>

If the simulation of a program with a loop of 5 iterations is
aborted after 3 iterations, all instructions are correctly
simulated. Nevertheless, it is an incorrect simulation, because
it should simulate up to the final state of the program.

>

First, NO ONE has said that *H* (or what every you are calling your
decider today) can correct simulate the input to a final state.

>

When there is no mapping from the finite string x86 machine language
input to H(D,D) to the behavior of D(D) then H(D,D) IS NOT being asked
about the behavior of D(D).

 

It means that H can't do the mapping, i.e. it is not simulating correctly.
It does a different map that doesn't fit its specification.
>

 No that is incorrect. D correctly simulated by every H that can
possibly exist does not have the same behavior of any directly
executed D(D) that halts.
 If I ask you: What time is it?
How do you know that my actual question is
what are you planning on having for dinner?
 

Nope, it has EXACTLY the same behavior as the simulation did, and then it continues to the return.
Aborted simulation do not indicate behavior of the input after the point of aborting, so you can't validly say that the behavior of the input is that it will never return, just that it DIDN'T return by the point that the simulation was aborted.
KEY DIFFERENCE.