Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- simulating vs. deciding

Am Thu, 13 Jun 2024 12:06:08 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 6/13/2024 11:53 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Thu, 13 Jun 2024 07:58:27 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 6/13/2024 3:52 AM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Wed, 12 Jun 2024 18:12:34 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> On 6/12/2024 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/12/24 12:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/11/24 11:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/11/2024 9:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/11/24 8:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/11/2024 7:20 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 12/06/2024 à 01:23, olcott a écrit :

>>>>> *If that was true then you could show ALL OF THE DETAILED STEPS*
>>>>> *of the mapping that H(D,D) computes to derive that behavior*
>>>> Any UTM/simulator does it. But H must halt, so it's wrong on non-
>>>> terminating inputs.
>> A decider must halt. A simulator must have the same behaviour and can't
>> abort a nonterminating program. A halting decider is impossible.
>> 
> void Infinite_Recursion(u32 N)
> {
>    Infinite_Recursion(N);
> }
> 
> In other words you are saying that a simulating termination analyzer
> that correctly determines that the above Infinite_Recursion cannot
> possibly halt is WRONG BY DEFINITION?
Yes, because to give that result it must halt.

> *THESE PEOPLE WOULD DISAGREE*
> AProVE: Non-Termination Witnesses for C Programs
This is not a simulator.

-- 
joes