Re: Everyone here seems to consistently lie about this

On 8/4/24 8:33 AM, olcott wrote:

On 8/4/2024 2:15 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-08-03 13:48:12 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 8/3/2024 3:06 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-08-02 02:09:38 +0000, olcott said:
>

*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.

>
The determination is not correct. DDD is a halting computation, as
correctely determined by HHH1 or simly calling it from main. It is
not possible to correctly determine that ha haling computation is
non-halting, as is self-evdent from the meaning of the words.
>

>
[Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated
  by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?]

>
Who here is too stupid to know that whether DDD can reach its
own return instruction depends on code not shown below?
>

 void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
 It is stipulated that HHH is an x86 emulator the emulates
N instructions of DDD where N is 0 to infinity.
 

In other words,  you don't have an actual program, since it doesn't have fixed behavior.
Sorry, you just blew up your shambles of a "proof".
You just created an infinite set of problems, where EVERY DDD of an HHH that emulates for a finite number of steps is Halting (because its HHH DOES return after a finite time) and thus thos HHH are WRONG to sau non-halting and the HHH that emulates for an infinite number of steps is wrong because it will not answer.
This just proves that you method fails, which is bad, since for this set of problems, an HHH that just immediately returns 1 would be correct, so there IS a correct answer that an HHH can give, so it isn't even a case of a pathological input.
Sorry, you are just proving yourself to be just wrong.