Re: Everyone here seems to consistently lie about this

Op 02.aug.2024 om 04:09 schreef olcott:

*This algorithm is used by all the simulating termination analyzers*
<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>

No problem to agree with that. The only problem is that no correct simulation has been shown. So this does not help you.

 DDD is correctly emulated by HHH according to the x86
language semantics of DDD and HHH including when DDD
emulates itself emulating DDD
 *UNTIL*

Indeed, until it deviates from the semantics of the x86 language.

 HHH correctly determines that never aborting this
emulation would cause DDD and HHH to endlessly repeat.

No, HHH thinks that two recursions is enough to decide that there is an infinite recursion, It fails to see that one cycle later the simulation would halt without abort.
So, the abort is premature. It skips the last few instructions of the program, hiding in this way that the simulation would halt.
In other words, HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly.
Olcott really, really wants it to be correct, but he has no evidence for it, but he thinks that ignoring the errors that have been pointed out helps. He also thinks that repeating many times without evidence that it is correct will make it correct.
He keeps dreaming that the HHH that does not halt, plays a role in the simulation of a HHH that aborts and halts.
But dreams are no substitute for fact, nor for logic.