Re: DD correctly emulated by HHH --- Totally ignoring invalid rebuttals ---PSR---

On 3/8/2025 7:43 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/8/2025 8:24 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/8/2025 6:56 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/8/2025 7:29 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/8/2025 5:31 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/8/2025 6:23 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/8/2025 4:58 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/8/2025 5:42 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/8/2025 9:00 AM, dbush wrote:

On 3/8/2025 9:03 AM, olcott wrote:

>
Apparently you don't understand that inputs to a simulating
termination analyzer specifying infinite recursion or
recursive emulation cannot possibly reach their own final
state and terminate normally.

>
Apparently you don't understand that inputs to a termination
analyzer, simulating or otherwise, are specified by the
specification that is the halting function:
(<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed
directly (<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt
when executed
And HHH(DD)==0 fails to meet the above specification

>
*THIS IS A SEMANTIC TAUTOLOGY THUS IMPOSSIBLY FALSE* Replacing
the code of HHH with an unconditional simulator and subsequently
running HHH(DD) cannot possibly reach its own "ret" instruction
and terminate normally because DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive
emulation.
It is ridiculously stupid to believe that HHH must report on
behavior other than the above behavior.
>

It must if it is to be classified as a halt decider or
termination analyzer as per the definition.

>
In other words you believe that HHH

>
Is required to map the halting function to meet the requirements to
be a halt decider / termination analyzer.
>

HHH must map from the input finite string DD to the behavior that
this finite string specifies

>
And what it specifies, to be considered a solution to the halting
problem, is given by the specification:
Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of instructions)
X described as <X> with input Y:
A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes the
following mapping:
(<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly
(<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed
>

In the same way that Sum(5,3) == 9 That is misconception is very
widely held does not make it not a misconception.
>

In other words, you have no rebuttal to the fact that HHH doesn't meet
the requirements to be a solution to the halting problem.

 
If the halting problem actually requires that the "decider"
report on behavior other than what the input specifies then its notion
of a halting decider is not even a decider in computer science.