Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly
 met --- WDH
Date: Tue, 13 May 2025 18:35:46 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <abf612a62f5bd524cd1db2d31935573f4187fbf6@i2pn2.org>
References: <vvte01$14pca$29@dont-email.me>
 <fceb852a146ff7238c5be7a0adf420474a8fb5df@i2pn2.org>
 <vvuc7a$1deu5$5@dont-email.me>
 <c5a47349d8625838f1ee2782c216e0ebf9223bc6@i2pn2.org>
 <vvuj6l$1j6s0$3@dont-email.me>
 <b78af2e0b52f178683b672b45ba1bc2012023aaf@i2pn2.org>
 <1000dlc$21dtc$5@dont-email.me>
 <56b6d1f535889a61c4b3ab9fbb49e40e921a461f@i2pn2.org>
 <1000eue$21dtc$7@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 14 May 2025 00:58:36 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="251915"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <1000eue$21dtc$7@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0

On 5/13/25 5:52 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/13/2025 4:39 PM, joes wrote:
>> Am Tue, 13 May 2025 16:30:20 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 5/13/2025 6:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/13/25 12:52 AM, olcott wrote:
>>
>>>>> It is truism that simulating termination analyzers must report on the
>>>>> behavior of their input as if they themselves never aborted this
>>>>> simulation:
>>>>
>>>> Right, of the input actually given to them, which must include all
>>>> their code, and that code is what is actually there, not created by
>>>> this imaginary operation.
>>>>
>>> In other words every single byte of HHH and DD are 100% totally
>>> identical except the hypothetical HHH has its abort code commented out.
>> ...the simulating HHH, but not the simulatED one.
>>
>>>> But you aren't simulating the same PROGRAM D that the original was
>>>> given.
>>>>
>>> It is not supposed to be the same program. *simulated D would never stop
>>> running* refers to a different HHH/DD pair
>> Uh yes it is supposed to be the same actual input. The *simulator* is
>> hypothetical.
>>
> 
> HHH is supposed to report on the behavior that
> *would* happen if this HHH never aborted its input.

But the input has a DD that calls the original HHH that does.

> 
> It must always use that measure to make sure
> that itself halts.
> 

Right, of the PROGRAM that the input represents, which includes ALL the 
code it uses, so the code of the ORIGINAL HHH that you started with.

This hypothetical doesn't change it, as in Computation Theory there are 
not "reference by name" to other programs.

Sorry, you are just showing your ignorance.