Re: Incorrect requirements --- Computing the mapping from the input to HHH(DD)

Am Tue, 13 May 2025 03:17:32 +0100 schrieb Mike Terry:

When his HHH simulates DD, it spots a pattern in the simulation which PO
calls his "infinite recursive simulation" pattern.  PO believes that
this pattern "specifies non halting behaviour" but it does not, as it
can match for both halting and non-halting computations.  Anyhow, PO has
coded HHH to abort and return non-halting if it sees that pattern.  He
really really really believes that pattern "specifies non halting",
despite observing with his own eyes DD halting when called directly!
The rest of his arguments are just attempts to justify why HHH is
"correct" to decide non-halting, despite DD halting.  They generally
amount to something like "during simulation my HHH detected non-halting
behaviour, so it is correct to decide non-halting".

Can you remind me how it matches halting computations? IIRC it looks
for invocations of the same function (across simulation levels, mind)
without conditional statements inbetween. Or is the impossibility of
recursive simulation the only reason for false positives?

--
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.