Re: DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH --- ONE POINT AT A TIME !!!

On 2/22/2025 3:34 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 22.feb.2025 om 00:15 schreef olcott:

On 2/20/2025 3:35 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 20.feb.2025 om 01:34 schreef olcott:

On 2/19/2025 4:55 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 18.feb.2025 om 17:48 schreef olcott:

On 2/18/2025 8:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 18.feb.2025 om 14:37 schreef olcott:

On 2/18/2025 6:25 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/18/25 6:26 AM, olcott wrote:

On 2/18/2025 3:24 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-02-17 09:05:42 +0000, Fred. Zwarts said:

Op 16.feb.2025 om 23:51 schreef olcott:

On 2/16/2025 4:30 PM, joes wrote:

Am Sun, 16 Feb 2025 15:58:14 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 2/16/2025 2:02 PM, joes wrote:

Am Sun, 16 Feb 2025 13:24:14 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 2/16/2025 10:35 AM, joes wrote:

Am Sun, 16 Feb 2025 06:51:12 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 2/15/2025 2:49 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-02-14 12:40:04 +0000, olcott said:

On 2/14/2025 2:58 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-02-14 00:07:23 +0000, olcott said:

On 2/13/2025 3:20 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-02-13 04:21:34 +0000, olcott said:

On 2/12/2025 4:04 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-02-11 14:41:38 +0000, olcott said:

A simulating termination analyzer correctly rejects any
input that must be aborted to prevent its own
non-termination.

Yes, in particular itself is not such an input, because
we *know* that it halts, because it is a decider. You
can’t have your cake and eat it too.

I am not even using the confusing term "halts". Instead I
am using in its place "terminates normally". DD correctly
simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate normally.

What’s confusing about „halts”? I find it clearer as it
does not imply an ambiguous „abnormal termination”. How
does HHH simulate DD terminating abnormally, then? Why
doesn’t it terminate abnormally itself?
You can substitute the term: the input DD to HHH does not
need to be aborted, because the simulated decider
terminates.

Every simulated input that must be aborted to prevent the
non-termination of HHH is stipulated to be correctly
rejected by HHH as non-terminating.

A very strange and invalid stipulation.

It merely means that the words do not have their ordinary
meaning.

Unless HHH(DD) aborts its simulation of DD itself cannot
possibly terminate normally. Every expert in the C programming
language can see this. People that are not experts get
confused by the loop after the "if" statement.

So? Since it does that, it needs to presume that the copy of
itself it sees called does that.

Not at all. Perhaps your technical skill is much more woefully
deficient than I ever imagined.
Here is the point that you just missed Unless the first HHH that
sees the non-terminating pattern aborts its simulation none of
them do because they all have the exact same code.

The point Olcott misses is that if the non-terminating HHH is
changed to abort the simulation, the program is changed. He does
not understand that a modification of a program makes a change.
Such a change modifies the behaviour of the program. The non-
termination behaviour has disappeared with this change and only
remains in his dreams. After this change, the simulation would
terminate normally and HHH should no longer abort. But it does,
because the code that detects the 'special condition' has a bug,
which makes that it does not see that the program has been
changed into a halting program.

When I focus on one single-point:
I get two years of dodging and this point is never addressed.
[DD simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate normally]

It is not true that this point has never been addressed. Olcott
ignores it when it is addressed.
What is the point? Even if HHH fails to simulate the halting
program DD up to the end because it is logically impossible for it
to complete the simulation, it still fails.

It fails In the same way that every CAD system will never correctly
represent a geometric circle that has four equal length sides in the
same two dimensional plane.

Indeed. Such a CAD system fails if it is given the task to draw a
square circle. Similarly, HHH fails if it is given the task to
determine the termination behaviour of DD.

It DOES NOT FAIL when it is defined coherently.
The square root of a basket of rotten eggs is also not computable.

Therefore it is stupid to give something the task to compute the square
root of a basket of rotten eggs. Similarly, it is equally stupid to try
the impossible task of letting HHH simulate itself.

Because the code proves that HHH does simulate itself correctly it is
not stupid for HHH to simulate itself. This was the most difficult
aspect of creating the x86utm operating system.