Re: DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH --- very stupid requirement

Op 27.feb.2025 om 21:25 schreef olcott:

On 2/27/2025 9:55 AM, joes wrote:

Am Thu, 27 Feb 2025 09:26:14 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 2/27/2025 1:42 AM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 26 Feb 2025 22:34:31 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 2/26/2025 9:50 AM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 26 Feb 2025 08:45:50 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 2/26/2025 3:29 AM, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 25 Feb 2025 20:13:43 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 2/25/2025 5:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

>

The behavior of DD emulated by HHH only refers to DD and the fact
that HHH emulates this DD.

On on hand, the simulator can have no influence on the execution.
On the other, that same simulator is part of the program.
You don't understand this simple entanglement.

Unless having no influence causes itself to never terminate then the
one influence that it must have is stopping the emulation of this
input.

No. Changing the simulator changes the input, because the input calls
that simulator.

In other words you are requiring simulating termination analyzers to
get stuck in infinite execution. That is a stupid requirement.

>

I don't make the rules. You are the one constructing infinite
recursion.

Your requirement that a simulating termination analyzer / halt decider
must get stuck in infinite recursion remains very stupid.

I mean, it IS simulating itself. That's the whole POINT.
>

 When-so-ever any correct simulating termination analyzer
correctly determines that it must abort the simulation
of its input to prevent its own infinite execution it is
always correct to reject this input finite string as
specifying non terminating behavior.
 This is a tautology thus all rebuttals are necessarily incorrect.
 

An irrelevant tautology, because there is no infinite recursion in its input. The finite string given to HHH describes a program with no infinite recursion, as proven by direct execution.
Olcott has no rebuttal for this, he only repeats his irrelevant claims.