Re: Liar detector: Peter Olcott

On 7/16/24 10:21 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/16/2024 1:58 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-15 12:55:21 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 7/15/2024 2:15 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-14 14:15:45 +0000, olcott said:

>
*You can comprehend this is a truism or fail to*
*comprehend it disagreement is necessarily incorrect*
Any input that must be aborted to prevent the non
termination of HHH necessarily specifies non-halting
behavior or it would never need to be aborted.

>
No, it is false. What the input specifies is a property of the input alone.
Whether some HHH is able to process it without looping forever is not a
property of the input and not relevant to the meaning of the input.

>
In other words you believe that you can correctly
ignore the verified fact that DDD correctly emulated
by HHH does call HHH(DDD) in recursive emulation.

>
It is not a fact and not verified but otherwise, yes, that is not relevant.
>

 When simulated input DDD stops running {if and only if}
the simulation of this input DDD has been aborted this
necessitates that input DDD specifies non-halting behavior
 

But the simulation of that input DOES stop running when completely emulated if the HHH that it calls ever aborts is emulation and returns.
It is just that the HHH doesn't get that far in its emulation.