Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH

Am Tue, 13 May 2025 20:27:54 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 5/13/2025 8:07 PM, dbush wrote:

On 5/13/2025 5:30 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/13/2025 6:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/13/25 12:52 AM, olcott wrote:

If my logic was based on lies and equivocation then you could
provide actual reasoning that corrects my errors.

>
I hae.

*crickets.

It is truism that simulating termination analyzers must report on
the behavior of their input as if they themselves never aborted this
simulation:

They themselves, but not the HHH called by the input.

Right, of the input actually given to them, which must include all
their code, and that code is what is actually there, not created by
this imaginary operation.

In other words every single byte of HHH and DD are 100% totally
identical except the hypothetical HHH has its abort code commented
out.

Only the simulating one, not the one being simulated.

But you aren't simulating the same PROGRAM D that the original was
given.
>

It is not supposed to be the same program.

 
So you *explicitly* admit to changing the input.
 

The finite string of DD is specific sequence bytes. The finite string of
HHH is specific sequence bytes.
The hypothetical HHH that does not abort its input cannot have input
that has changed because it never comes into actual existence.

We can hypothesise anything we want.

This proves your work has nothing to do with the halting problem.

When ZFC over-ruled naive set theory this caused Russell's Paradox to
cease to exist.

Not in naive set theory.

--
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.