Re: Liar detector: Fred, Richard, Joes and Alan --- Ben's agreement

On 2024-07-16 14:21:28 +0000, olcott said:

On 7/16/2024 1:58 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-15 12:55:21 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 7/15/2024 2:15 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-14 14:15:45 +0000, olcott said:

 *You can comprehend this is a truism or fail to*
*comprehend it disagreement is necessarily incorrect*
Any input that must be aborted to prevent the non
termination of HHH necessarily specifies non-halting
behavior or it would never need to be aborted.

 No, it is false. What the input specifies is a property of the input alone.
Whether some HHH is able to process it without looping forever is not a
property of the input and not relevant to the meaning of the input.

 In other words you believe that you can correctly
ignore the verified fact that DDD correctly emulated
by HHH does call HHH(DDD) in recursive emulation.

 It is not a fact and not verified but otherwise, yes, that is not relevant.
 

 When simulated input DDD stops running {if and only if}
the simulation of this input DDD has been aborted this
necessitates that input DDD specifies non-halting behavior

DDD does not stop runnig unless it is completely exeuted. Whether a
simulation of DDD is discontinued before its completion depends on
the simulator. It is perfectly possible to simulate the first 25
machine instructions and stop there. If the simulated program does
not terminate before 25 instructions that does not tell whther it
ever terminates.
You can construct a partial halt decider that simulates for example
1 000 000 000 instructions unless the program halts before and then
reports that it failed to determine. That could be useful for many
purposes.
--
Mikko