XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math

When the last sentence of the following is fully understood it will be
known that I am correct:

WE ALL AGREE ON THIS:
A halt decider must compute the mapping from its input finite strings to
its own accept or reject state.

HERE IS WHERE WE DIVERGE:
A halt decider must compute the mapping from its input finite strings to
its own accept or reject state:

On the basis of the actual behavior actually specified by its input.

THIS IS EVERYONE'S MISTAKE
All of my reviewers (and Linz) always measure a different sequence of configurations than the one that is actually specified by the actual input.



Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V4)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359349179_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V4


--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

"Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see."
Arthur Schopenhauer

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