Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting

Am Sun, 09 Jun 2024 11:15:08 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 6/9/2024 10:13 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-09 14:03:08 +0000, olcott said:

On 6/9/2024 3:52 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-08 13:46:07 +0000, joes said:

Am Sat, 08 Jun 2024 08:04:14 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 6/8/2024 1:42 AM, Mikko wrote:

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:

Directly executed DD(DD) and DD correctly simulated by HH are two
different sequences of configurations and HH is only held accountable
for the latter.

As a simulator, HH must simulate the same sequence.

The everyone disagrees with this verified fact that HH correctly
simulated by DD DOES NOT HALT is less than no rebuttal at all.

If the simulated DD doesn't halt, its direct execution can't halt either.

--
joes