Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules

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 :
> 
>>>> The actual behavior of the input to H(D,D) is the truthmaker for halt
>>>> decider H.
>>> Which is DEFINED to be the behavior of the program described by the
>>> input when directly run.
>> *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.
> 

*NO IT IS FREAKING NOT WRONG ON NON-TERMINATING INPUTS*

void Infinite_Recursion(u32 N)
{
   Infinite_Recursion(N);
}

<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
   If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
   until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
   stop running unless aborted then

   H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
   specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words10/13/2022>


-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer