Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis

Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 10:20:09 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 6/7/2024 10:09 AM, Python wrote:

Le 07/06/2024 à 17:05, olcott a écrit :

On 6/7/2024 9:55 AM, Python wrote:

Le 07/06/2024 à 16:47, olcott a écrit :

Anyway, you're wrong : a Turing machine can take its own description as
part of its input, as it is finite.

That is what I said. They cannot however take actual Turing machines as
inputs it must always be a finite string machine description.

Of course. That is not a restriction.

The issue here is that I proved that DD correctly simulated by HH
has different behavior than the directly executed DD(DD) and
everyone's "rebuttal" to this proof is to simply ignore it.

When you actually try to form a rebuttal of the above you will see
that I am correct. So far everyone simply ignores the proof that I am
correct as their only rebuttal.

A {correct simulation} means that each instruction of the above x86
machine language of DD is correctly simulated by HH and simulated in the
correct order.

And to the end. Thus it can't behave differently than direct execution.

Anyone claiming that HH should report on the behavior of the directly
executed DD(DD) is requiring a violation of the above definition of
correct simulation.

But those are the same. How does simulating something change it?

--
joes