From: mikko.levanto@iki.fi   
      
   On 2025-10-10 17:39:51 +0000, olcott said:   
      
   > This may finally justify Ben's Objection   
   >   
   >    
   >      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.   
   >    
   >   
   > 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.   
      
   The behaviour specified by D is what it is regardless whether it   
   is executed or how it is executed. The the phrase "its simulated   
   D" simply means the particular D that is simulated and not any   
   other program that may happen to have the same name.   
      
   If the simulated D is different from the D given as input to H the   
   answer that is correct about the simulated D may be wrong about the   
   D given as input.   
      
   --   
   Mikko   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)