Re: Why Peter Olcott is proven correct by honest reviewers

On 2025-05-18 02:08:21 +0000, olcott said:

On 5/17/2025 8:06 PM, Mike Terry wrote:

On 18/05/2025 01:11, Mr Flibble wrote:

Hi!
 In the case of pathological input, Peter's SHD only needs to report a
correct halting result *as if* the simulation was run to completion:

 Right.  If the simulation is run to completion, that's like a UTM simulating the input, and equivalent to asking whether the input halts.  This is the case for all inputs, not just "pathological" ones, whatever they are exactly.
 PO's DD() calls an "embedded HHH" which aborts its simulation.  If that DD is simulated to completion it halts,

 Deceptive wording.
DDD simulated by HHH has no completion.

We, who are too lazy or honest or stupid or unmotivated to deceive may
use a different wording of the same: HHH does not simulate DDD to its
completion, the exsitence of which can be proven with a better simulation.
--
Mikko