Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT

Op 29.jun.2025 om 16:34 schreef olcott:

On 6/29/2025 4:10 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-06-28 13:51:21 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 6/28/2025 6:56 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-06-27 14:26:41 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 6/27/2025 1:42 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-06-27 04:21:01 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 6/26/2025 5:20 AM, Mikko wrote:>>>

In computer science the only measure of non-halting is the
possibility to execute an unlimited number of steps without
halting. An execution of a limited number of steps does not
count as non-haltign.

>
Halting means reaching a final halt state.

>
And non-halting means unlimited execution.

>
Not at all. The measure has always been can't possibly reach
final halt state.

>
In Post's simplified version, which is the most commonly used one,
a computation halts when there is no applicable rule to specify
the next action.

>
It is best to use the standard measure of halting
as reaching a final halt state.

>
If you use Turing's original form of Turing maches then it is best to
use Turing's definition of halting. If you are using some usual form
then the usual criterion that halting means inability to contimue.
Otherwise you get the paradox that a computation cannot be continued
but it has not halted, either.
>

 Because no one ever thought of a simulating partial halt
decider (SPHD) before as a partial halt decider (PHD) we
must divide halting from an aborted simulation.
 If we don't do this then actual infinite loops will
be misconstrued as halting because their SPHD stopped
simulating them.
 

It is dishonest to present a halting program as non-halting, only because the simulator fails to reach the end of the simulation and aborts prematurely.