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

On 5/12/2025 10:06 AM, dbush wrote:

On 5/12/2025 11:04 AM, olcott wrote:

Termination analyzers compute the mapping from their
inputs to the behavior that these inputs actually specify.

 False.  They compute the mapping from their input to the behavior of the algorithm described by the input when executed directly, as per the requirements:
 

That is easily proven stupidly wrong.
If HHH could see that the direct execution of DDD()
does halt because HHH spots the repeating pattern
and aborts this simulation and HHH did not abort
on this basis then DDD() never halts, proving
that HHH was correct to abort.
Most people here seem to be complete morons about
hypothetical possibilities.
<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>
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer