Re: Disagreeing with tautologies is always incorrect

On 05/29/2025 08:37 AM, olcott wrote:

HHH is a simulating termination analyzer that uses
an x86 emulator to emulate its input. HHH is capable
of emulating itself emulating DDD.
>
HHH is executed within the x86utm operating system
that enables any C function to execute another C
function in debug step mode.
>
*Here is the fully operational code*
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
>
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
>
_DDD()
[00002192] 55             push ebp
[00002193] 8bec           mov ebp,esp
[00002195] 6892210000     push 00002192
[0000219a] e833f4ffff     call 000015d2  // call HHH
[0000219f] 83c404         add esp,+04
[000021a2] 5d             pop ebp
[000021a3] c3             ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [000021a3]
>
<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
>
It is a tautology that any input D to termination
analyzer H that *would never stop running unless aborted*
DOES SPECIFY NON-TERMINATING BEHAVIOR.
>
Simulating Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Simulating_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
>
>

No it's not.
(Was, "disagreeing with tautologies is always incorrect".)
It's the _deductive_ analysis that makes for the
"analytical bridges" to escape an "inductive impasse".