Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- never reaches its halt state ---natural number mapping

On 8/11/2024 5:45 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 10.aug.2024 om 21:05 schreef olcott:

On 8/10/2024 1:56 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 10.aug.2024 om 20:41 schreef olcott:

On 8/10/2024 1:35 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

>
No evidence for these claims. We know that a simulation of a halting program is correct only when it reaches the halt state,

>
void Infinite_Recursion()
{
   Infinite_Recursion();
}
>
void Infinite_Loop()
{
   HERE: goto HERE;
}
>
You seem to be an ignoramus. Ordinary ignorance can be corrected.

>
Completely irrelevant. There is no infinite loop in HHH because HHH aborts after N recursions, not after an Infinite_Recursion.

>
Thus you already knew that your statement was false before you
said it. Infinite_Loop() need not be emulated to non-existent
completion before HHH recognizes its infinite behavior pattern.
>
Why say things that you know are false?
>

 Irrelevant text about olcott dreams of a non-halting simulation ignored.
 void Finite_Recursion (int N) {
   if (N > 0) Finite_Recursion (N - 1);
}
 This is not an infinite recursion.
 

It is the dishonest dodge of changing the subject
using the strawman deception (error of reasoning)
to form a rebuttal to something other than what I said.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
If you insist on the strawman deception then that
objectively makes you a deceiver.
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
This above code is the subject matter. The slightest change
of subject away from the above code is an intentional error
of reasoning.

Olcott's own trace showed that HHH halts. So, it does not have infinite behaviour. It has an end. Further, this trace showed that the simulation failed to reach that end. That does not show infinite behaviour, but a failed simulation.
Dreams are no substitute for facts.
 Olcott has a circular reasoning.
1) The simulation does not reach the end, so there must be infinite behaviour.

*The behavior of the input only has to match this criteria*
<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
Professor Sipser is the best selling author of Theory of Computation textbooks and has written many papers on the subject

2) There is infinite behaviour, so the simulation must abort and must be correct.
He has no evidence for it, neither for 1, nor for 2, but he uses 1 as evidence for 2 and 2 as evidence for 1.

It is a tautology.

The simple facts are that the simulation is incorrect, because it failed to reach the end. The end is there, as shown by direct execution, by the simulation by another simulator (such as HHH1) and by inspection of the code and of the trace. So, there is plenty of evidence that there is an end.
Olcott prefers to ignore all the evidence, because he really, really wants his claims to be true, so he keeps repeating them, without any evidence. But repetition does not make things true.
That is something he probably just does not want to know.

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer