Sujet : Re: My reviewers think that halt deciders must report on the behavior of their caller
De : richard (at) *nospam* damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 13. Jul 2025, 00:27:35
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <9a58d9ce85d791c6d0e024a41f16d801dec7dff0@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 7/12/25 11:16 AM, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2025 5:52 AM, joes wrote:
Am Fri, 11 Jul 2025 16:13:38 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 7/11/2025 3:59 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>
As usual claims without evidence. If we do not change the input (which
aborts after a few cycles o simulation), then the simulating HHH could
reach the final halt state without abort.
>
It is a very easily verified fact that the input never aborts anything
at all.
>
Only because it is aborted in turn.
HHH(DDD) simulates its input until it sees that
DDD cannot possibly stop running unless aborted.
Then why does the direct execution of DDD halt?
You seem to forget that the Copy of HHH that DDD calls is part of itself, and that aborting nested simulation is a positive aspect of DDD, and since that makes it halt, it is halting.
IT is a DIFFERENT DDD when built on the HHH that doesn't abort, but that seems to be beyond your too elementary understand of what is a program.
void DDD()
{
HHH(DDD);
return;
}
Can you see that DDD endlessly repeats its first
line of code when simulated by a pure simulator HHH?
But the HHH that simualtes DDD and that DDD calls isn't a pure simulator, as such a HHH fails to be a decider.
Thus, your HHH that you claim to be correct to return 0, isn't actually the HHH that you were thinking of as a pure simulator, and thus this DDD doesn't call that hypothetical HHH, but the actual one that aborts and returns 0, and thus the actual pure simulation of DDD will halt.
Your problem is you don't know what you input has to be.
If you try to exclude the code of HHH from it, then the pure simulator HHH just fails, because it CAN'T simulate the input past the call instruction, as there is no code there to simulate, and it fails to actually simulate the input.
Sorry, you are just proving your stupidity.
The *input*, being the code of DDD,
doesn't do anything at all since it is just a representation. This
representation has reachable code to abort.
>