Re: Overview of proof that the input to HHH(DDD) specifies non-halting behavior

On 8/12/24 9:43 PM, olcott wrote:

We prove that the simulation is correct.

Which means it runs unitl it reaches a final state, and exactly details the behavior of the machine the input represents.

Then we prove that this simulation cannot possibly
reach its final halt state / ever stop running without being aborted.

Which means that a NON-ABORTED simulation of this input will never reach the final state.
And that input is exactly the input that you will use belew.

The semantics of the x86 language conclusive proves this is true.

Only if you FOLLOW the x86 language semantics, which again says you can't stop the simulation that defines the behavior until it reaches a final state.

 Thus when we measure the behavior specified by this finite
string by DDD correctly simulated/emulated by HHH it specifies
non-halting behavior.

And, if that string doesn't contrain the code for the decider it was built on, it isn't the right string, as it isn't a program.

 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Simulating_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
 

Except that the only way for HHH to DO a correct emulation is to never abort, and thus is can't return if its input is non-halting.
If it does abort, then the fact that its simulation didn't reach a final state doesn't say anything, we need to give that exact same input (which will be INCLUDE the copy of the decider that it was built on that doesn't change for this verification step) to a real complete simulator.
That simulator will see the start of the input program call the copy of the decider that the input usses, and since it aborts and returns, it will see the copy do that same thing which will thus return to the based decider which will halt.
Your problems are you think the input doesn't contain the copy of the decider, and thus all the inputs to every decider in your infinite set of input/decider pairs are the same, but then the input isn't a program, and you argument makes a category error.
Then, you try to let a partial simulation that doesn't reach the final state to be considered a "correct simulation" such that its not reaching the final state indicates non-halting, which is just an error.
Sorry, these errors have been expalined many times, and the fact you keep repeating them either means you are totally stupid, and can't even see that you are stupid (the worse kind of stupid) or are such a liar that you don't care that your lies are so blatant, which is worse.
Note, you also need to fix your decider so it IS a computation, and thus not vary its behavior based on things other than it explicit input, which basically removes the option of using static memory like your currect bunch uses.