Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH

Am Tue, 13 May 2025 16:52:14 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 5/13/2025 4:39 PM, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 13 May 2025 16:30:20 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 5/13/2025 6:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/13/25 12:52 AM, olcott wrote:

 

It is truism that simulating termination analyzers must report on
the behavior of their input as if they themselves never aborted this
simulation:

>
Right, of the input actually given to them, which must include all
their code, and that code is what is actually there, not created by
this imaginary operation.
>

In other words every single byte of HHH and DD are 100% totally
identical except the hypothetical HHH has its abort code commented
out.

...the simulating HHH, but not the simulatED one.
 

But you aren't simulating the same PROGRAM D that the original was
given.
>

It is not supposed to be the same program. *simulated D would never
stop running* refers to a different HHH/DD pair

Uh yes it is supposed to be the same actual input. The *simulator* is
hypothetical.
 

HHH is supposed to report on the behavior that *would* happen if this
HHH never aborted its input.

Right, if *this* simulator never aborted simulating *that* HHH that DDD
calls, which does abort. They are 100% completely different, except for
everything apart from the abort. HHH should report on what an UTM would
do with DDD calling the aborting HHH, namely halt.

--
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.