I have not said that H doesn't PARTIALLY simulate the first N steps of
the behavior of the input.
That is NOT a "Correct Simulation" by the definition of a UTM, and
doesn't show non-halting behavior. Since you are using the definition of
a UTM to replace the behavior of the program described by the input,
with a simulation, you need to use the UTMs definition of Simulation,
which is a non-aborted simulation.
Thus, it is YOU who denies the "self-evident truth".
>
> You are also horrendously terrible at understanding that when every
> element of a set has a property that this semantically entails
> that each element of this same set has this property.
But every element of the set DOESN'T have that property.
Every element that aborts its simulation, fails to meed the requirement
to correctly simulate the input.
Since every case needs to be considered separately (as the question is
about specific inputs, and that case in question that input has been
paired with a specific decider for the proof case, that you are trying
to refute) we can look at each specific case.
If H does abort its simulation (and thus H doesn't do a correct
simulation to make claims about), then D is built on that H that aborts
its simulation, and the only criteria we have left are the direct
execution and the actual correct simulation of that D, which calls THIS
H (that aborts) then that H will simulate the "N steps" and abort and
return non-halting to D and D will Halt.
You have agreed to this behavior (by default) as you have failed to show
where that H called by the directly executed or correctly simulated D
actually differs from the behavior of the direct running of H(D,D).
Thus, the only correct answer is Halting, which isn't what H predicted,
thus your claims are shown to just be LIES.
>
> When zero elements of every H that simulates D can ever stop
> running unless they abort their simulation of D then this
> entails D species non-halting behavior.
But, the only elements of the set that DO "Correctly Simulate" there
inputs, are the ones that don't abort, and those don't answer.
For every element of the set that DOES abort, the ACTUAL CORRECT
simulation halts.
Thus, the condition that ZERO element satisfies is giving the actual
correct answer about the actual correct simulation of the input.
>
> It is like you are disagreeing that cats are cats because
> you firmly believe that cats are dogs, never comprehending
> that disagreeing with a tautology is always necessarily incorrect.
>
Just shows your reliance on Red Herring, because you (should) KNOW that
your logic is flawed (or you are just too stupid to learn).