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

On 4/2/25 10:37 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/2/2025 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 4/1/25 10:37 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/1/2025 8:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 4/1/25 7:35 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/1/2025 5:36 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/31/25 10:19 PM, olcott wrote:

>
*Simulating termination analyzer Principle*
It is always correct for any simulating termination
analyzer to stop simulating and reject any input
that would otherwise prevent its own termination.
>

>
But DDD doesn't prevent its own terminatation, as it calls an HHH that WILL abort its emulation and return and answer.
>

>
You know that DDD stopping running and DDD reaching its
final halt state are not the same thing you damned liar.
>

>
Right, the DDD who's simulation is stopped hasn't shown non-halting behavior, just not-yet-halted.
>

>
You already admitted that you are lying about this.
DDD emulated by HHH for an infinite number of steps
never reaches its final halt state.

>
But that isn't something that happens with THIS HHH, since it doesn't do that.
>

  When DDD emulated by HHH for an infinite number of steps
never halts then as soon as HHH correctly infers this it
has its basis to reject DDD.
 

But your HHH doesn't emulated DDD for an infinite number of steps, that is just another machine you deceptivly try to call by the same name.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_induction

And induction needs to be based on sound proofs.
Not proofs based on false assumptions.

 DDD emulated by HHH does not reach its final halt state
with a single emulation of DDD by HHH.

Because HHH stops early.

 DDD emulated by HHH does not reach its final halt state
with N recursive emulations of HHH emulating itself emulating DDD.

Which doesn't prove anything,

 Therefore
DDD emulated by HHH does not reach its final halt state
and can be rejected as non-halting.
 

No because that isn't the definition of non-halting, and you are just proving that you don't understand what you are talking about, but that you think it is ok to just lie.
Partial emulations not reaching a final state don't indicate non-halting, and changing the input invaldites your logic.
Sorry, you are just proving you are just an ignorant stupid pathological liar.