Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Mike Terry Proves --- How the requirements that Professor Sipser
 agreed to are exactly met
Date: Sun, 18 May 2025 19:08:34 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <ddbd48b20851b2362f0841506e0ffe32430323d9@i2pn2.org>
References: <1005jsk$3akrk$1@dont-email.me>
	<bc6f0f045212bdfb7f7d883426873a09e37789ea@i2pn2.org>
	<1005u6v$3cpt2$1@dont-email.me> <1006oi9$3l93f$1@dont-email.me>
	<1007kan$3qb7l$8@dont-email.me> <1009n2d$b9ol$1@dont-email.me>
	<100ag73$g1r8$1@dont-email.me> <100c83u$tspg$1@dont-email.me>
	<100ctuc$121rs$1@dont-email.me> <100d5b7$13m1e$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 18 May 2025 19:08:34 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="835026"; 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

Am Sun, 18 May 2025 12:28:05 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 5/18/2025 10:21 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>> On 18/05/2025 10:09, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2025-05-17 17:15:14 +0000, olcott said:

>>>> HHH(DDD) does not base its decision on the actual behavior of DDD
>>>> after it has aborted its simulation of DDD, instead it bases its
>>>> decision on a different HHH/DDD pair that never aborts.
>>>
>>> This is why HHH does not satisfy "H correctly determines that its
>>> simulated D would never stop running unless aborted". If HHH bases its
>>> decision on anything else than what its actual input actually
>>> specifies it does not decide correctly.
>>>
>> Right.  It seems to be a recent innovation in PO's wording that he has
>> started using the phrase "..bases its decision on a different *HHH/DDD
>> pair* ..".
>> 
> Thus SHD must report on a different SHD/Infinite_Loop pair where this
> hypothetical instance of itself never aborts.
This, the simulator. The input still calls the same real aborting HHH.

> If H always reports on the behavior of its simulated input after it
> aborts then every input including infinite_loop would be determined to
> be halting.
Yes, that is why H is wrong.

> Instead H must report on the hypothetical H/D input pair where the very
> same H has been made to not abort its input.
Just no.

> *H correctly determines that its simulated D*
> *would never stop running unless aborted*
> by a hypothetical instance of itself that never aborts.
H does stop running when simulated without aborting, because it aborts.

-- 
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.