Re: Halting Problem: What Constitutes Pathological Input

Am Tue, 06 May 2025 10:29:59 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 5/6/2025 4:35 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-05-05 17:37:20 +0000, olcott said:

The above example is category error because it asks HHH(DD) to report
on the direct execution of DD() and the input to HHH specifies a
different sequence of steps.

 
No, it does not. The input is DD specifides exactly the same sequence
of steps as DD. HHH just answers about a different sequence of steps
instead of the the seqeunce specified by its input.

As agreed to below:

<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
 
*input D* is the actual input *would never stop running unless aborted*
is the hypothetical H/D pair where H does not abort.

H should simulate its actual input D that calls the aborting H, not a
hypothetical version of D that calls a pure simulator.

You cannot possibly show the exact execution trace where DD is correctly
emulated by HHH and this emulated DD reaches past its own machine
address [0000213c].

Duh, no simulator can simulate itself correctly. But HHH1 can simulate
DD/HHH.

--
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.