----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@MSGID: 1@dont-email.me> f3322694
@REPLY: 2@dont-email.me> b88b0f03
@REPLYADDR Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
@REPLYTO 2:5075/128 Mikko
@CHRS: CP866 2
@RFC: 1 0
@RFC-Message-ID: 1@dont-email.me>
@RFC-References: 3@dont-email.me>
1@dont-email.me> 1@dont-email.me> 1@dont-email.me>
1@dont-email.me> 1@dont-email.me> 1@dont-email.me>
1@dont-email.me> 1@dont-email.me> 2@dont-email.me>
1@dont-email.me> 1@dont-email.me> 1@dont-email.me>
1@dont-email.me> 1@dont-email.me> 2@dont-email.me>
@TZUTC: 0300
@PID: Unison/2.2
@TID: FIDOGATE-5.12-ge4e8b94
On 2023-08-18 17:07:09 +0000, olcott said:
> On 8/18/2023 11:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2023-08-18 14:18:55 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> *Thus you agree with this*
>>> D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own line 06.
>>
>> I`m mot sure it is correct English to use "D" as a subject to an active
>> verb "reach" as D is not present and therefore cannot actively do anything.
>> Anyway, one can say that H cannot correctly simulate D(D) past line 6,
>> which apparently is what you try to express with that sentence.
>>
>> Mikko
>>
>
> It is not an error of H that prevents the correct simulation of G past
> line 06, it is the pathological relationship that D defines with H that
> makes this impossible.
If H(D,D) says "does not halt" but D(D) halts then H is not a halt decider
because it does not satisfy the definition of "halt decider".
Whether that is an error depends on whether H is claimed or required to be
a halt decider.
Mikko
--- Unison/2.2
* Origin: - (2:5075/128)
SEEN-BY: 5001/100 5015/255 5019/40 5020/715 848
1042 4441 12000 5030/49 1081
SEEN-BY: 5058/104 5075/128
@PATH: 5075/128 5020/1042 4441