Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Hypothetical possibilities
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2024 21:06:25 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <73e4850d3b48903cf85b2967ba713aced98caf96@i2pn2.org>
References: <v7gl30$3j9fi$1@dont-email.me> <v7h1fl$3lcvq$3@dont-email.me>
	<v7h224$3li66$3@dont-email.me>
	<e975eef57ba6d3d4cc790818c05b7165443f7ce4@i2pn2.org>
	<v7h5b2$3m6kq$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2024 21:06:25 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3980803"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 2611
Lines: 34

Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 15:05:53 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 7/20/2024 2:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/20/24 3:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/20/2024 2:00 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 20.jul.2024 om 17:28 schreef olcott:

>>>>> (a) Termination Analyzers / Partial Halt Deciders must halt this is
>>>>> a design requirement.
>>>>> (b) Every simulating termination analyzer HHH either aborts the
>>>>> simulation of its input or not.
>>>>> (c) Within the hypothetical case where HHH does not abort the
>>>>> simulation of its input {HHH, emulated DDD and executed DDD}
>>>>> never stop running.
>>>>> This violates the design requirement of (a) therefore HHH must abort
>>>>> the simulation of its input.
You missed a couple details:
A terminating input shouldn't be aborted, or at least not classified
as not terminating. Terminating inputs needn't be aborted; they and the
simulator halt on their own.

>>>> And when it aborts, the simulation is incorrect. When HHH aborts and
>>>> halts, it is not needed to abort its simulation, because it will halt
>>>> of its own.
>>> So you are trying to get away with saying that no HHH ever needs to
>>> abort the simulation of its input and HHH will stop running?
Pretty much.
>> It is the fact that HHH DOES abort its simulation that makes it not
>> need to.
> No stupid it is not a fact that every HHH that can possibly exist aborts
> its simulation.
I thought they all halt after a finite number of steps?

-- 
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.