Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connectionsPath: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: V5 --- Professor Sipser
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2024 20:54:12 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <014d24acf43dc57225d2f616618267dd6f94bb8d@i2pn2.org>
References:
<431deaa157cdae1cae73a1b24268a61cf8ec2c1c@i2pn2.org>
<7a1c569a699e79bfa146affbbae3eac7b91cd263@i2pn2.org>
<729cc551062c13875686d266a5453a488058e81c@i2pn2.org>
<148bf4dd91f32379a6d81a621fb7ec3fc1e00db0@i2pn2.org>
<5591ff08ed8f7b4bdf33813681e156b775efe0ec@i2pn2.org>
<26fadbf7b8cb5f93dbe18bffeff6e959251f9892@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2024 00:54:12 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
logging-data="3524973"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4256
Lines: 53
On 8/22/24 9:36 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/22/2024 8:21 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Thu, 22 Aug 2024 07:59:59 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 8/22/2024 3:16 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 22.aug.2024 om 06:22 schreef olcott:
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>> We swap the word "determines" for "predicts"
>>> When we swap thew word "halt decider" for "termination analyzer" the
>>> above is translated from computer science into software engineering.
>>> The second half proves that this is the H that aborts that is making the
>>> prediction of the behavior of D when emulated by a hypothetical version
>>> of itself then never aborts.
>>
>>>>> THIS EXACTLY MATCHES THE SIPSER APPROVED CRITERIA The finite HHH(DDD)
>>>>> emulates itself emulating DDD exactly once and this is sufficient for
>>>>> this HHH to predict what a different HHH(DDD) do that never aborted
>>>>> its emulation of its input.
>>>> But that different hypothetical HHH is a non-input.
>>> HHH is supposed to predict what the behavior of DDD would be if it did
>>> not abort its emulation of DDD that is what the words that Professor
>>> agreed to mean.
>> If IT didn’t abort DDD calling its aborting self.
>>
>
> I don't know how you twist words to get that.
> HHH is required to predict the behavior of DDD
> as if every HHH had its abort code removed.
But that isn't the input, so that is just a LIE.
HHH needs to predict the behavior of the copy of DDD that it is given,
including the HHH that it calls (which will be itself).
You just don't seem to understand the basic definitions of the field,
and thus just make up your wild lies.
>
>>>> Do you still not understand that HHH should predict the behaviour of
>>>> its input? Why does the HHH have an input, if it is correct to predict
>>>> the behaviour of a non-input?
>>>> Are you still cheating with the Root variable to change the input in a
>>>> non-input?
>
>