Re: Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?

On 8/4/2024 2:18 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-08-03 13:58:07 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 8/3/2024 3:19 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-08-02 20:57:26 +0000, olcott said:
>

Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated
by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?
>
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}

>
Everyone here understands that that depends on whther HHH returns.

>
Fred's understanding is worse than that.

 You don't know whether that is true.
 

Some have deeper understanding than that.
>
*Ben has the best understanding of all*

 In particular better than you.
 

*Ben has a deeper agreement with me than anyone else*
<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 words 10/13/2022>
On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
 > I don't think that is the shell game.  PO really /has/ an H
 > (it's trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines
 > that P(P) *would* never stop running *unless* aborted.
...
 > But H determines (correctly) that D would not halt if it
 > were not halted.  That much is a truism.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer