Re: Hypothetical possibilities --- Complete Proof

On 2024-08-02 11:21:17 +0000, olcott said:

On 8/2/2024 5:19 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-08-01 16:32:23 +0000, olcott said:

 <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>
 I spent two years carefully composing the above before I even
asked professor Sipser to review it.
 DDD is correctly emulated by HHH until HHH sees the same
never ending pattern that anyone else can see.

 Maybe HHH really sees a never ending pattern but that pattern is not
contained in the behaviour specified by DDD and therefore not relevant.
 

 When DDD correctly emulated by HHH keep repeating
its first four instructions because it calls HHH(DDD)
this does prove that DDD cannot possibly reach its
own "ret" instruction and halt, thus DDD correctly
emulated by HHH <is> non-halting even when it stops
running.

How is your expression of a disgreement with a self-evident thruth
(that a process that stops is not non-halting) different from lying?
--
Mikko