Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH

On 5/13/2025 4:39 PM, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 13 May 2025 16:30:20 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 5/13/2025 6:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/13/25 12:52 AM, olcott wrote:

 

It is truism that simulating termination analyzers must report on the
behavior of their input as if they themselves never aborted this
simulation:

>
Right, of the input actually given to them, which must include all
their code, and that code is what is actually there, not created by
this imaginary operation.
>

In other words every single byte of HHH and DD are 100% totally
identical except the hypothetical HHH has its abort code commented out.

...the simulating HHH, but not the simulatED one.
 

But you aren't simulating the same PROGRAM D that the original was
given.
>

It is not supposed to be the same program. *simulated D would never stop
running* refers to a different HHH/DD pair

Uh yes it is supposed to be the same actual input. The *simulator* is
hypothetical.
 

HHH is supposed to report on the behavior that
*would* happen if this HHH never aborted its input.
It must always use that measure to make sure
that itself halts.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer