Re: How do simulating termination analyzers work? ---Truth Maker Maximalism

Am Fri, 04 Jul 2025 12:30:43 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/4/2025 8:37 AM, joes wrote:

Am Fri, 04 Jul 2025 07:16:23 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/4/2025 3:55 AM, joes wrote:

Am Thu, 03 Jul 2025 17:11:45 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/2/2025 1:53 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-07-01 11:46:11 +0000, olcott said:

You are effectively saying that all programs that start with a call
to HHH are the same.

Did I misunderstand you?

Because it is not an input it HHH is not accountable for its behavior.
Deciders are only accountable for computing the mapping from their
inputs.

Yes it is, HHH should compute whether the code of DD halts when run.
You can't be thinking that is uncomputable.

Likewise we should also compute the area of a square circle with a
radius of 2.

Are you seriously suggesting that you can't compute what the code of
DDD does when executed?

Partial halt deciders have never been allowed to report on the behavior
of any directly executed Turing machine. Instead of this they have used
the behavior that their input machine description specifies as a proxy.

And you think that DDD's direct execution is not specified by its
description?

Now for the first time we see that DDD correctly simulated by HHH *IS
NOT A PROXY* for the behavior of the directly executed DDD().

Indeed, HHH does not simulate it correctly. (You can't mean that DDD
is *executed* incorrectly.)

--
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.