Sysop: | Amessyroom |
---|---|
Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
Users: | 26 |
Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
Uptime: | 53:23:12 |
Calls: | 632 |
Files: | 1,187 |
D/L today: |
26 files (19,391K bytes) |
Messages: | 178,640 |
This may finally justify Ben's Objection
<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>
I certainly will not quote professor Sipser on this change
unless and until he agrees to it.
H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report
that [its simulated] D specifies a non-halting sequence
of configurations.
Because the whole paragraph is within the context of
simulating halt decider H and its simulated input D it
seems unreasonable yet possible to interpret the last
D as a directly executed D.