Re: DDD specifies recursive emulation to HHH and halting to HHH1

Am Sat, 29 Mar 2025 16:07:59 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 3/29/2025 3:45 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

When solving a problem, it is stupid to choose a tool that has a
pathological relation with the problem.

A termination analyzer cannot reject itself, yet it can reject an input.

Of course it can reject itself, if it can't simulate itself.

This input was intentionally defined to try to fool this termination
analyzer.
On the other hand when this same input DD is simulated by the
termination analyzer that DD defined a pathological relationship to IT
DOES SPECIFY NON-TERMINATING BEHAVIOR.

Only if the analyser analyses it as terminating.

Because of this the contradictory portion of its code is unreachable
thus cannot possible do the opposite of whatever value that HHH returns.

No, it can only be unreachable if the decider(!) doesn't return.

If I want to repair a hammer, it is stupid to use this same hammer to
fix it.
Similarly, to solve the question whether DDD halts, one can use direct
execution, or a world-class simulator, or even HHH1, but it is stupid
to choose a solver that has a pathological relation with this input,
because it is guaranteed that it will give the wrong answer. (If it
answers.)

--
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.