Re: Mike Terry Proves --- How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met

On 5/20/25 12:10 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/19/2025 5:12 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-05-18 19:18:21 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 5/18/2025 2:08 PM, joes wrote:

Am Sun, 18 May 2025 12:28:05 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 5/18/2025 10:21 AM, Mike Terry wrote:

On 18/05/2025 10:09, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-05-17 17:15:14 +0000, olcott said:

>

HHH(DDD) does not base its decision on the actual behavior of DDD
after it has aborted its simulation of DDD, instead it bases its
decision on a different HHH/DDD pair that never aborts.

>
This is why HHH does not satisfy "H correctly determines that its
simulated D would never stop running unless aborted". If HHH bases its
decision on anything else than what its actual input actually
specifies it does not decide correctly.
>

Right.  It seems to be a recent innovation in PO's wording that he has
started using the phrase "..bases its decision on a different *HHH/DDD
pair* ..".
>

Thus SHD must report on a different SHD/Infinite_Loop pair where this
hypothetical instance of itself never aborts.

This, the simulator. The input still calls the same real aborting HHH.
>

If H always reports on the behavior of its simulated input after it
aborts then every input including infinite_loop would be determined to
be halting.

Yes, that is why H is wrong.
>

Instead H must report on the hypothetical H/D input pair where the very
same H has been made to not abort its input.

Just no.
>

*H correctly determines that its simulated D*
*would never stop running unless aborted*
by a hypothetical instance of itself that never aborts.

H does stop running when simulated without aborting, because it aborts.
>

>
H is required to report on the behavior of D in the
case where a hypothetical instance of itself never
aborts its simulated D.
>
When the hypothetical H never aborts its simulated D then:
(a) Simulated D  NEVER HALTS
(b) Executed D() NEVER HALTS
(c) Executed H() NEVER HALTS
(d) Everything that H calls NEVER HALTS

>
You forgot
(e) H does not report
>

 HHH is required to report, that is why it
must always report on the behavior of the
hypothetical H/D pair and not the actual
behavior of the actual H/D pair for every
non-terminating input.
 

No, it may be that is all that it CAN do, but to be correct it MUST report on the D/H pair that it was given, which uses itself, and since that means the Hypothetical HHH needs to simulate that same pairing (DDD with the HHH that ends up actually aborting) we find that the requirements force your system to do something it can not do because it was built in error.
As I mentioned when I first joined this, DDD needs to be located in a seperate memory space from HHH, as it needs its own copy of it, in part, to allow for this hypothetical case. Since your system can't do this by your restrictions, you just show that your system isn't actually Turing Complete.
The fact that you have admitted that it is a fact that your decider and input are not of the right class to be in the problem (since you admit that you know they are not "programs" when that is the category of things that they are both required to be) your whole argument is admitted to be a lie.