Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior
 than DD(DD) STEP(1)
Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2024 08:33:10 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <v43ib7$38hnd$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v428vv$2no74$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2024 08:33:12 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ac900217678be2bc02d35086c56fff5f";
	logging-data="3426029"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/shwpzRct9NbRh4m3QM4X7"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Ko+tgcQ8PTUK8vQrtAGkwky8xvc=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <v428vv$2no74$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 2588

Op 08.jun.2024 om 20:47 schreef olcott:
> Before we can get to the behavior of the directly executed
> DD(DD) we must first see that the Sipser approved criteria
> have been met:
> 
> <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>
> 
> On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>  > I don't think that is the shell game. PO really /has/ an H
>  > (it's trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines
>  > that P(P) *would* never stop running *unless* aborted.
> 
> Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever
> stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH.

Stopping at your first error. So, we can focus on it. Your are asking a 
question that contradicts itself.
A correct simulation of HH that aborts itself, should simulate up to the 
point where the simulated HH aborts. That is logically impossible. So, 
either it is a correct simulation and then we see that the simulated HH 
aborts and returns, or the simulation is incorrect, because it assumes 
incorrectly that things that happen (abort) do not happen.
A premature conclusion.