Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant?

On 7/2/2024 6:32 AM, joes wrote:

Am Mon, 01 Jul 2024 20:25:40 -0500 schrieb olcott:

int main()
{
    HHH(Infinite_Loop); HHH(Infinite_Recursion);
    HHH(DDD);
}
Every C programmer that knows what an x86 emulator is knows that when
HHH emulates the machine language of Infinite_Loop, Infinite_Recursion,
and DDD that it must abort these emulations so that itself can terminate
normally.

At the cost of not doing the full simulation. If you want it to terminate.
 

This <is> the problem that I am willing to discuss.
I am unwilling to discuss any other problem.
This does meet the Sipser approved criteria.
<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>

When this is construed as non-halting criteria then simulating
termination analyzer HHH is correct to reject these inputs as
non-halting by returning 0 to its caller.

It gets the decider part right, but not the simulator part.
 

Simulating termination analyzers must report on the behavior that their
finite string input specifies thus HHH must report that DDD correctly
emulated by HHH remains stuck in recursive simulation.

Of course we want the right answer, which is not whatever HHH makes up,
but what the input DDD does by itself.
 

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer