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

On 2024-06-07 22:26:05 +0000, olcott said:

On 6/7/2024 4:00 PM, joes wrote:

Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 09:47:35 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 6/7/2024 1:30 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-06 15:31:36 +0000, olcott said:

On 6/6/2024 10:14 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-06 13:53:58 +0000, olcott said:

On 6/6/2024 5:15 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-05 13:29:28 +0000, olcott said:

On 6/5/2024 2:37 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-04 18:02:03 +0000, olcott said:

 

A simulating halt decider cannot report on what the behavior of a
non-terminating input actually is because this would take forever.

Exactly. Didn't you say it is allowed to abort?
 

H is not allowed to report on any computation containing its actual self
because Turing machines can only take finite string inputs thus cannot
take Turing machines as inputs.

Bullshit. It can take other machines just fine. It doesn't know about
itself.
 

 No actual Turing machine can be the input to any other actual
Turing machine. Turing machines only take finite string inputs.

Any finite string can be an input to some Turing machine.
Can you prove that a Turing machine is not a finite string?
Your own attempts of a conter-proof are not about Turing machines
but C programs. C programs are finite strings, so a C program
is a valid input to a C program (and a Turing machine, too).

This means that H is not allowed to report on the behavior of the
directly executed P(P).

So on which program does it report then?

--
Mikko