Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3

On 4/27/24 5:36 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/27/2024 4:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 4/27/24 3:48 PM, olcott wrote:

Simulating termination analyzer H determines whether or not
D(D) simulated by H can possibly reach its final state at its
own line 06 and halt whether or not H aborts its simulation.
>
We can resolve exactly what I mean by this as an aspect of
staying on this one point. We cannot move on to the slightest
trace of any nuance of any other point until AFTER we have
100% complete mutual agreement on this point.
>
(a) It is a verified fact that D(D) simulated by H cannot
possibly reach past line 03 of D(D) simulated by H whether H
aborts its simulation or not.
>
When we have 100% perfect mutual agreement on that point
then we can move on to the next aspect of the point of the
paragraph.
>

>
The problem is you don't seem to have a proper definition for a "program", as the input seems to change behavior as you analyize different options for what "different" H's might do.
>
It seems that neither your D or your H actual meet the normal definition of what a "Program" is.
>

 I never even use the word "program"
*H and D are 100% completely specified right here*
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
 

So, what is the defined "class" of the input to a Termination Analyzer.
The input to a Halt Decider is (in the specific case, where the decider is itself a Turing Machine) a description of a Turing Machine and its input tape, or in the more general case, the description of a Program and its input.
If your "Replacement" for a Halt Decider (your Termination Analyzer) doesn't take the same class of thing as an input, then it isn't much of a replacement, and your whole scheme falls apart.