Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules

On 6/13/2024 3:52 AM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 12 Jun 2024 18:12:34 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 6/12/2024 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/12/24 12:50 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/12/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/11/24 11:34 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/11/2024 9:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/11/24 8:57 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/11/2024 7:20 PM, Python wrote:

Le 12/06/2024 à 01:23, olcott a écrit :

 

The actual behavior of the input to H(D,D) is the truthmaker for halt
decider H.

Which is DEFINED to be the behavior of the program described by the
input when directly run.

*If that was true then you could show ALL OF THE DETAILED STEPS*
*of the mapping that H(D,D) computes to derive that behavior*

Any UTM/simulator does it. But H must halt, so it's wrong on non-
terminating inputs.
 

*NO IT IS FREAKING NOT WRONG ON NON-TERMINATING INPUTS*
void Infinite_Recursion(u32 N)
{
   Infinite_Recursion(N);
}
<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 then
   H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
   specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words10/13/2022>
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer