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

On 7/4/25 3:15 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/4/2025 2:09 PM, joes wrote:

Am Fri, 04 Jul 2025 13:37:25 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/4/2025 1:23 PM, joes wrote:

Am Fri, 04 Jul 2025 12:30:43 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/4/2025 8:37 AM, joes wrote:

Am Fri, 04 Jul 2025 07:16:23 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/4/2025 3:55 AM, joes wrote:

>

You are effectively saying that all programs that start with a call
to HHH are the same.

The nesting is too deep to see what you are responding to.

Lol, you could have responded immediately. You know how to look up posts.
>

Yes it is, HHH should compute whether the code of DD halts when run.
You can't be thinking that is uncomputable.

Likewise we should also compute the area of a square circle with a
radius of 2.

Are you seriously suggesting that you can't compute what the code of
DDD does when executed?

Don't complain later.
>

Partial halt deciders have never been allowed to report on the
behavior of any directly executed Turing machine. Instead of this they
have used the behavior that their input machine description specifies
as a proxy.

And you think that DDD's direct execution is not specified by its
description?

I HAVE PROVEN THAT DDD CORRECTLY SIMULATED BY HHH DOES NOT HAVE THE SAME
BEHAVIOR AS DDD() THOUSANDS OF TIMES IN THE LAST THREE YEARS

No disagreement; not my question.
>

Now for the first time we see that DDD correctly simulated by HHH *IS
NOT A PROXY* for the behavior of the directly executed DDD().

Indeed, HHH does not simulate it correctly. (You can't mean that DDD is
*executed* incorrectly.)

You are using the wrong measure of correct.

So DDD specifies at least two different behaviours?
>

 *Yes. This sums it up quite well* (its only 1.5 pages long)
https://claude.ai/share/da9b8e3f-eb16-42ca-a9e8-913f4b88202c
 

Then your system LIES and is based on lies.
"Code" is deterministic, and thus every instruction when starting from the same state will always do the same thing.
Since there will nevef be a specific instruction whose execution will not match its "correct simulation" (or some other exectution path that started from the same state) there can never be a divergence of results.
Your failure to point to an instruction ACTUALLY CORRECTLY simulated that created a different results from the same step directly exectuted, just points out that you know you are just lying, but can't admit it to yourself or the people you are talking to.
Sorry, you are just a sef-brainwashed gaslight liar that can't handle the truth.