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

On 7/5/2025 3:32 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-07-04 12:34:39 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 7/4/2025 2:25 AM, Mikko wrote:

>
What HHH correctly or otherwise simulates is merely an implementation
detail.

>
It is a detail that defines a partial halt decider
that makes the "do the opposite" code unreachable.

 No, it does. The proof that a counter-example can be constructed
does not refer to any implementation details, so it applies to
every implementation that is does not violate the requirements
so obviously that the proof is not needed.
 

What matters is the beahviour DD specifies.

>
The behavior that an input specifies is only correctly
measured by correctly simulating this input.

 Wrong. It is correctly measured by a direct execution.

Since no Turing machine can possibly take another directly
executing Turing machine as an input this makes all directly
executed Turing machines outside of the domain of every Turing
machine based decider.
The requirement that a halt decider report on the behavior
of things outside of its domain has always been bogus.
Instead of this deciders must report on the behavior that
their input actually specifies. The input to HHH(DDD) specifies
recursive simulation that cannot possibly reach its own
simulated final state. Four chatbots figured this out on
their own, thus busted everyone here for gaslighting.
I also have two people with masters degrees in computer
science that both agreed to this years ago.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer