On 7/31/24 1:31 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/31/2024 2:48 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-31 07:42:42 +0000, Mikko said:

On 2024-07-30 14:21:02 +0000, olcott said:

On 7/30/2024 1:52 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-29 14:07:53 +0000, olcott said:

HHH(Infinite_Recursion) and HHH(DDD) show the same non-halting
behavior pattern in their derived execution traces of their
inputs.

Hard to believe as their behaviour is so different and you don't
say what pattern the see.

*Its all in the part that you erased*

*Infinite_Recursion correctly emulated by HHH*
*THREE lines repeat with no conditional branch instructions*
Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:113934 >>>> [0000215a][00113924][00113928] 55         push ebp      ; 1st line
[0000215b][00113924][00113928] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; 2nd line >>>> [0000215d][00113920][00002162] e8f8ffffff call 0000215a ; 3rd line
[0000215a][0011391c][00113924] 55         push ebp      ; 1st line
[0000215b][0011391c][00113924] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; 2nd line >>>> [0000215d][00113918][00002162] e8f8ffffff call 0000215a ; 3rd line
Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped

*DDD correctly emulated by HHH*
*FOUR lines repeat with no conditional branch instructions*
Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:113895 >>>> [00002177][00113885][00113889] 55         push ebp      ; 1st line
[00002178][00113885][00113889] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; 2nd line >>>> [0000217a][00113881][00002177] 6877210000 push 00002177 ; push DDD
[0000217f][0011387d][00002184] e853f4ffff call 000015d7 ; call HHH
[00002177][0015e2ad][0015e2b1] 55         push ebp      ; 1st line
[00002178][0015e2ad][0015e2b1] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; 2nd line >>>> [0000217a][0015e2a9][00002177] 6877210000 push 00002177 ; push DDD
[0000217f][0015e2a5][00002184] e853f4ffff call 000015d7 ; call HHH
Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped

As that part does not show the anwer it seems best to assume that they
do not see the same pattern or the pattern is not a real non-halting
behaviour pattern. Of course, if a proof is ever presented, we may need
to reconsider, but it is very unlikely that any such proof will ever
be presented.

Forgot to mention that the above traces confirm one thing: they are
incomplete. At least relevant register values should be shown.

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>

In other words you persistently insist on dishonestly
providing a fake rebuttal that has already been fully refuted.

Except that the definition is about looking at an actually correct
simuliaton, which means one that doesn't EVER abort. Because of your intertwining the input with the decider, you aren't allowed to change
the decider to hypotosize about in not aborting, so you lose the "by the decider" part of the statement, but must correct determine what happens
when this exact input (incuding using this exact decider) is given to a
pure simulator that doesn't abort. Since that WILL reach a final state
if this decider aborts and returns, it can never correctly conclude the
needed result, so it can never use the second paragraph, but must abort
to avoid not being a decider, and thius makes itself wrong.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)