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

On 5/13/25 5:52 PM, olcott wrote:

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.

But the input has a DD that calls the original HHH that does.

 It must always use that measure to make sure
that itself halts.
 

Right, of the PROGRAM that the input represents, which includes ALL the code it uses, so the code of the ORIGINAL HHH that you started with.
This hypothetical doesn't change it, as in Computation Theory there are not "reference by name" to other programs.
Sorry, you are just showing your ignorance.