Everyone here seems to consistently lie about this

*This algorithm is used by all the simulating termination analyzers*
<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 words 10/13/2022>
DDD is correctly emulated by HHH according to the x86
language semantics of DDD and HHH including when DDD
emulates itself emulating DDD
*UNTIL*
HHH correctly determines that never aborting this
emulation would cause DDD and HHH to endlessly repeat.
When I say everyone I mean:
Joes, Fred, Richard, Mike, Mikko, Andy, André...
*Excluding only Ben Bacarisse*
On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
 > I don't think that is the shell game.  PO really /has/
 > an H (it's trivial to do for this one case) that correctly
 > determines that P(P) *would* never stop running *unless*
 > aborted.
...
 > But H determines (correctly) that D would not halt if
 > it were not halted.  That much is a truism.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer