Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: V5 --- Professor Sipser
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2024 10:27:29 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 46
Message-ID: <va9h5h$raj3$4@dont-email.me>
References: <va104l$376ed$4@dont-email.me>
 <431deaa157cdae1cae73a1b24268a61cf8ec2c1c@i2pn2.org>
 <va38qh$3ia79$1@dont-email.me>
 <7a1c569a699e79bfa146affbbae3eac7b91cd263@i2pn2.org>
 <va3f7o$3ipp3$1@dont-email.me>
 <729cc551062c13875686d266a5453a488058e81c@i2pn2.org>
 <va3kac$3nd5c$1@dont-email.me>
 <148bf4dd91f32379a6d81a621fb7ec3fc1e00db0@i2pn2.org>
 <va3lai$3nd5c$2@dont-email.me> <va46sd$3pr24$1@dont-email.me>
 <va4mle$3s0hu$1@dont-email.me>
 <5591ff08ed8f7b4bdf33813681e156b775efe0ec@i2pn2.org>
 <va63uu$2fo9$1@dont-email.me>
 <b0a86b6a1343ebb5f9112ae757768a7cbbc770b2@i2pn2.org>
 <va65r8$6ht7$1@dont-email.me>
 <26fadbf7b8cb5f93dbe18bffeff6e959251f9892@i2pn2.org>
 <va6b4n$7boc$1@dont-email.me>
 <b19eb2a29dacfa67f2f9ced0d03234e980f4c985@i2pn2.org>
 <va6edj$8f0p$1@dont-email.me> <va6s5i$c9tl$1@dont-email.me>
 <va7cof$ebdg$1@dont-email.me>
 <e12d5d2caec39f6964f567343dad8333a92970fe@i2pn2.org>
 <va7et1$ebdg$6@dont-email.me>
 <48bac6ea945e7b6364a5c5c02834f07f62214e75@i2pn2.org>
 <va7s4u$gq6e$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2024 10:27:29 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="df4aa3cb7f8e2c18cf9aa7efa47ca66a";
	logging-data="895587"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19hS+B65kimyXuk9YTI8X66"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:rw6P73jTN900OSd63R4ncGO9CcY=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <va7s4u$gq6e$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4407

Op 22.aug.2024 om 19:22 schreef olcott:
> On 8/22/2024 11:59 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Thu, 22 Aug 2024 08:36:33 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> 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:
>>>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>>>>        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.
>>>>> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>>>> 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.
>> bla bla
>>>>> 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.
>> But still emulating a D that calls an aborting H.
>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>> It is also not the simulator (since they are the same).
>>>>> 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.
>> No; only if the same goes for the outermost one (but that doesn’t halt).
>> Otherwise it is not simulating itself.
>>
> 
> It <is> emulating the exact same code at the exact same
> machine address exactly twice.
> 
The code with the cheating Root variable that makes the simulated HHH 
different from the simulating HHH?