Re: V5 --- Professor Sipser --- trace of HHH on DDD input

Am Sat, 24 Aug 2024 08:21:45 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 8/24/2024 3:47 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 23.aug.2024 om 23:40 schreef olcott:

On 8/23/2024 2:24 AM, joes wrote:

Am Thu, 22 Aug 2024 12:42:59 -0500 schrieb olcott:

>

Only IF it will in fact keep repeating, which is not the case.

Only IF it *WOULD* in fact keep repeating, *which is the case*

It is the case only if you still cheat with the Root variable, which
makes that HHH processes a non-input, when it is requested to predict
the behaviour of the input.

The fact is that it *WOULD* in fact keep repeating,
thus *IT DOES* get the correct answer.

The simulated, aborting HHH would… abort.

The input given to HHH in fact halts, as is seen in the direct
execution and in the correct simulation by HHH1.

The fact is that all deciders only report on the behavior specified by
their inputs and non-inputs are non-of-their-damn business.

Non-inputs such as a pure simulator that does not abort.

When HHH computes the mapping from its finite string input of the x86
machine code of DDD to the the behavior that DDD specifies HHH correctly
predicts that DDD cannot possibly stop running unless aborted.
 
The reason that this seem so strange is not that I am incorrect.

Yes it is.

The reason is that everyone rejected simulation as a basis for a halt
decider out-of-hand without review.

Absolutely not. What do you think we are doing here?

Because of this they never saw the
details of this behavior when a termination analyzer correctly emulates
an input that calls itself.

The details have been sufficiently dissected.

They never notices that there could possibly be a case where the
behavior of the emulation of the machine specified by its own Machine
description (x86 language) could differ from the direct execution of
this same machine.

Which means the simulator is wrong.

But HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly.

The ONLY measure of simulated correctly is that each x86 instruction of
N instructions of DDD is emulated correctly and in the correct order.

ALL instructions.

--
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.