Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- reaches its halt state --- Which DDD does if HHH(DDD) returns and answer, which it does since it is a decider.

On 8/9/24 10:24 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/9/2024 8:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/9/24 9:52 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/9/2024 8:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/9/24 9:25 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/9/2024 8:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/9/24 8:52 PM, olcott wrote:

>
When we look at every HHH that can possibly exist then
we see that DDD correctly emulated by each one of these
cannot possibly reach its "return" instruction halt state.

>
But ONLY ONE of those actuallu "correctly emulates" the input, and that one isn't a decider.
>

>
In other words you are trying to keep getting away
with the bald-faced lie that when HHH correctly
emulates N instructions of DDD (where N > 0) that
it did not correctly emulate any instructions of DDD.
>
*Give it up you lost you are stuck in repeat mode*
*Give it up you lost you are stuck in repeat mode*
*Give it up you lost you are stuck in repeat mode*
>

>
So, I guess you don't understand English.
>
Where did I say that simulating N instructions correctly is not simulating ANY instructions correctly.
>

>
*Shown above*
"But ONLY ONE of those actuallu "correctly emulates" the input..."
>

>
Right, becuase to correctly emulate, you need to correct emulate EVERY instruction, not just some of them.
>

 So you defining whole notion simulating termination analyzers
as incorrect even though professor Sipser has agreed that the
simulation need not be complete.

No, they just need to do the job right.
But it needs to prove that the CORRECT SIMULATION, which would be complete, doesn't ever reach a final state. That COULD be done by replacing the decider with a non-aborting version, but you have to do it in a way that doesn't change the input, which means in your case, you can't change the copy of HHH that DDD calls.
Of course, with a proper setup, where DDD has its own copy of the decider, that wouldn't be a problem.
Since, giving THIS DDD, which calls THIS HHH, that tries to use the rule to abort, to a actual correct simulation, we see DDD call HHH(DDD) which WILL abort it simulation and return to DDD which then reaches its final state, so the application of the rule by HHH could not have been based on a correct determination that the correct simulation of this input is non-halting.

 <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
    If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
    until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
    stop running unless aborted...
 You lost, you are stuck in repeat mode. You have no
rebuttals that have not been proven false.
 

Nope, YOU have lost as you can't actually deal with ANY of the points I bring up, but just repeat your LIES that have been previously rebutted and not countered.
You just are too dumb to realize how stupid you are. The most stupid type of stupid.