Re: Incorrect requirements --- Computing the mapping from the input to HHH(DD)

On 10/05/2025 09:18, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 10.mei.2025 om 05:13 schreef olcott:

On 5/9/2025 9:40 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:

<snip>

I had not intended to post again, but I feel the need to make
a clarification.
>
I acknowledged that the return statement would never be reached
*given the assumption* that HHH correctly simulates DDD.  Given
that assumption, a call to DDD() should be equivalent to a call
to HHH(DDD).
>

>
Yes and then I moved on the next tiny incremental> step of my proof. Correctly simulated less than
an infinite number of instructions does not help
the simulated DDD to reach its "return statement"
final halt state.

 The word 'tiny' is misleading. It is a fundamental change. Now HHH does no longer do a correct simulation, because it ignores the input part of the input that specifies that HHH simulates only a *finite* number of steps.

HHH is /required/ to ignore its input.
It can /call/ DDD, but it mustn't inspect it. When it does so, it violates a 'shall' outside of a constraint.
<snip>
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within