Re: Computing the mapping from the input to HHH(DD) --- REFUTES INCORRECT REQUIREMENTS

On 5/10/2025 2:33 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-05-09 16:25:12 +0000, olcott said:
 

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
>
When 1 or more statements of DDD are correctly
simulated by HHH then this correctly simulated
DDD cannot possibly reach its own “return statement”.
(final halt state)

 That one or more statements of DDD are correctly simulated does not
mean that DDD is correctly simulated.
 

It is stipulated that when one or more statements
of DDD are correctly simulated that one or more
statements of DDD are correctly simulated.
It is ridiculously stupid to require a simulating
termination analyzer to continue to simulate a non
terminating input.

That one or more cents of a debt is correctly paid does not mean
that the debt is correctly paid.
 

My point is that there are no conditions where
DDD could be correctly simulated by HHH such that
DDD reaches its own "return" statement.
<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
Simulating termination analyzers continue to simulate
until D simulated by hypothetical H (that does not abort)
*would never stop running unless aborted*
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer