Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis

On 6/7/24 8:35 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/7/2024 7:25 PM, Python wrote:

Le 08/06/2024 à 00:26, olcott a écrit :
...

No actual Turing machine can be the input to any other actual
Turing machine. Turing machines only take finite string inputs.

>
Any Turing Machine can be represented by a finite strint inpput.
>

 When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
 It turns out that the behavior of Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is verifiably different
that the behavior of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated by embedded_H
even if an expert in comp theory named Jesus told you otherwise.

If can't be, amd be a correct simulation.
You just don't understand the DEFINITION of being correct.

 To overcome the religious belief that they are the same one must
examine this at the x86 machine code level with complete understanding
of the x86 machine code.
 

SO do it, and tell us which is the first instruction where the direct exectuion of DD(DD) and the "correct simulation" of that input differ in results.
My guess is that it will be a non-simulated call to HH, where your "correct simulation" presumes incorrect behavior for the function.