A simulating halt decider correctly predicts whether or not its
correctly simulated input can possibly reach its own final state and
halt. It does this by correctly recognizing several non-halting behavior
patterns in a finite number of steps of correct simulation. Inputs that
do terminate are simply simulated until they complete.

When a simulating halt decider correctly simulates N steps of its input
it derives the exact same N steps that a pure UTM would derive because
it is itself a UTM with extra features.

My reviewers cannot show that any of the extra features added to the UTM
change the behavior of the simulated input for the first N steps of
simulation:
-- Watching the behavior doesn't change it.
-- Matching non-halting behavior patterns doesn't change it
-- Even aborting the simulation after N steps doesn't change the first
N steps.

Because of all this we can know that the first N steps of input D
simulated by simulating halt decider H are the actual behavior that D
presents to H for these same N steps.

computation that halts… “the Turing machine will halt whenever it enters
a final state” (Linz:1990:234)

When we see (after N steps) that D correctly simulated by H cannot
possibly reach its simulated final state in any finite number of steps
of correct simulation then we have conclusive proof that D presents non-
halting behavior to H.

*Simulating (partial) Halt Deciders Defeat the Halting Problem Proofs*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Simulating_partial_Halt_Deciders_Defeat_the_Halting_Problem_Proofs

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 4/12/23 2:27 PM, olcott wrote:
> A simulating halt decider correctly predicts whether or not its
> correctly simulated input can possibly reach its own final state and
> halt. It does this by correctly recognizing several non-halting behavior
> patterns in a finite number of steps of correct simulation. Inputs that
> do terminate are simply simulated until they complete.

Since that isn't the question asked of a Halt decidr, you are just
admitting that you are working on a POOP based Strawman.

>
> When a simulating halt decider correctly simulates N steps of its input
> it derives the exact same N steps that a pure UTM would derive because
> it is itself a UTM with extra features.

Yes, but since an ACTUAL Halt Decider needs to answer based on the
behavior of the ACTUAL MACHINE represented by the input, and you admit
the D(D) Halts, H can't be a correct Halt Decider saying H(D,D) is 0.

So, your "Proof" is shown to be jsut a LIE.

>
> My reviewers cannot show that any of the extra features added to the UTM
> change the behavior of the simulated input for the first N steps of
> simulation:
>  -- Watching the behavior doesn't change it.
>  -- Matching non-halting behavior patterns doesn't change it
>  -- Even aborting the simulation after N steps doesn't change the first
> N steps.

Because we don't need to, we just need to show that it gives the wrong
answer.

D(D) Halts, so H(D,D) is incorrect.

H THINKS it is a UTM, when it isn't, and thus its logic is INVALID.

>
> Because of all this we can know that the first N steps of input D
> simulated by simulating halt decider H are the actual behavior that D
> presents to H for these same N steps.

So, what matters is what a COMPLETE simulation of the input to H does,
which H doesn't (and can't) do.

>
> computation that halts… “the Turing machine will halt whenever it enters
> a final state” (Linz:1990:234)

Right, THE COMPUTATION, and that (i.e. D(D)) Halts, so the input
represents a Halting computation.

>
> When we see (after N steps) that D correctly simulated by H cannot
> possibly reach its simulated final state in any finite number of steps
> of correct simulation then we have conclusive proof that D presents non-
> halting behavior to H.
>

No, all you have done is proven that H isn't actually a UTM, since we
have shown that D(D) Halts, so H is just incorrect and you are proven to
be a LYING IDIOT.

>
>
> *Simulating (partial) Halt Deciders Defeat the Halting Problem Proofs*
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Simulating_partial_Halt_Deciders_Defeat_the_Halting_Problem_Proofs
>

Just more of your false logic and lies.

YOU FAIL.