Re: What it would take...

Op 12.mei.2025 om 19:29 schreef olcott:

On 5/9/2025 8:11 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

The HHH code doesn't exactly invite confidence in its author, and his theory is all over the place, but a thought experiment suggests itself.
>
If we were not all wasting our time bickering with a career bickerer... if we were to really /really/ try, could we patch up his case and send him on to his Turing Award? And if so, how?
>
ISTR that there is suspected to be a theoretical window for him, so I suppose what I'm asking is what sort of boathook we would need to poke that window a little wider.
>
Can he even get there from here? Evidence would suggest that simulation is a dead end unless he can find a way to get the simulated program to include its own simulation in its behaviour, which he has not yet managed to do - but /is/ there a way?
>
Or could he abandon simulation completely and instead write a TM parser that builds an AST and walks it looking for evidence of terminating or looping? If he could, would that turn the trick?
>
Or do we have a latter day Cantor waiting in the wings to close the window once and for all?
>
Is there, in short, any way of putting out this un-halting flame war and turning this group to better use?
>

 int DD()
{
   int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}
 DD correctly simulated by any pure simulator
named HHH cannot possibly terminate thus proving

that the simulation failed and therefore is incorrect, because the end is reachable as proven by other simulators, but HHH fails to reach this reachable end.

that this criteria has

not
 > been met:>

<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>
 

This is about a correct simulation. So it does not apply to the above incorrect simulation.
You  seem to be very short of memory. Why repeating so many times claims that have been proven to be irrelevant?