Path: ...!news.nobody.at!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Everyone here seems to consistently lie about this
Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2024 11:06:17 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <v8kodp$3bu46$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v8hf52$2jl7d$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2024 10:06:17 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b1a0dbf49226a9afe8ac0f2cff9b34f2";
	logging-data="3537030"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+YwToUvkYz6Jd0pg4Cf7ne"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:bTRG/2XMq8ohmnmNIq1HFSkNW44=
Bytes: 2036

On 2024-08-02 02:09:38 +0000, olcott said:

> *This algorithm is used by all the simulating termination analyzers*
> <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 words 10/13/2022>
> 
> DDD is correctly emulated by HHH according to the x86
> language semantics of DDD and HHH including when DDD
> emulates itself emulating DDD
> 
> *UNTIL*
> 
> HHH correctly determines that never aborting this
> emulation would cause DDD and HHH to endlessly repeat.

The determination is not correct. DDD is a halting computation, as
correctely determined by HHH1 or simly calling it from main. It is
not possible to correctly determine that ha haling computation is
non-halting, as is self-evdent from the meaning of the words.

-- 
Mikko