Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria --self-evident truth--

On 3/17/2024 12:35 PM, immibis wrote:

On 17/03/24 17:47, olcott wrote:

It is an empirically verified fact that either
Sipser_H(Sipser_D, Sipser_D) aborts its simulation or neither
Sipser_H(Sipser_D, Sipser_D) nor Sipser_D(Sipser_D) ever stops
running (not counting stack overflow).

 Sipser_H and Sipser_D are the same code that you called H and D in x86utm, right?
 

Not quite.
int Sipser_D(int (*M)())
{
   if ( Sipser_H(M, M) )
     return 0;
   return 1;
}
Sipser_H is the same and Sipser_H(Sipser_D, Sipser_D)
is isomorphic to H(D,D)

It is an empirically verified fact that H(D,D) aborts its simulation.

That is not the question.
We are verifying that it is proven to be correct.
[Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria --self-evident truth--]
For every possible way that H can be encoded and D(D)
calls H(D,D) either H(D,D) aborts its simulation or D(D)
never stops running.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer