Re: Defining a correct simulating halt decider

On 9/2/24 12:38 PM, olcott wrote:

A halt decider is a Turing machine that computes
the mapping from its finite string input to the
behavior that this finite string specifies.
 

Where the "finite string" is a representation of a Turing Machine and its input, and the mapping is the behavior of that Machine/Input when run.
Important point, as only a Machine and its input has the "halting" property, and its is the direct

If the finite string machine string machine
description specifies that it cannot possibly
reach its own final halt state then this machine
description specifies non-halting behavior.

Which MEANS the direct execution of the machine and input the finite string describes.

 A halt decider never ever computes the mapping
for the computation that itself is contained within.

But it can be asked about a computation that includes a copy of itself.
Of course, the decider is looking at an input that might create another instance of itself by using a copy of itself, and that is a valid question.
It is of course structurally impossible for an input to include *THIS* instance of the decider as the input doesn't specify what "instance" it is of, just the code, and the instance is created when it is run/simulated.

 Unless there is a pathological relationship between
the halt decider H and its input D the direct execution
of this input D will always have identical behavior to
D correctly simulated by simulating halt decider H.

No, the "pathological relationship" doesn't affect the meaning of the input or the question being asked.
The question is SPECIFICALLY about the behavior of the machine and input described to the decider, and NOT about what the decider can determine about the input.
Sorry, you are just proving that you are nothing but an ignorant liar.

 *Simulating Termination Analyzer H Not Fooled by Pathological Input D*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Simulating_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
 A correct emulation of DDD by HHH only requires that HHH
emulate the instructions of DDD** including when DDD calls
HHH in recursive emulation such that HHH emulates itself
emulating DDD.
 ** According to the semantics of the x86 language.
  

Which just LIES about what it is trying to show, because you don't understand the problem you say you are working on.