Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: V5 --- Professor Sipser --- trace of HHH on DDD input
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2024 12:37:56 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <0316ef1705c41d4d5f183c0b8c852567432bbb55@i2pn2.org>
References: <va104l$376ed$4@dont-email.me> <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$1@dont-email.me>
 <e20689d26c224e4923146d425843348539ce6065@i2pn2.org>
 <va7tb3$h3la$1@dont-email.me>
 <2c6dfb2e8cdafc17fd833599dfba3843f56a281a@i2pn2.org>
 <vaavkc$128hl$1@dont-email.me> <vac6ns$1atfd$1@dont-email.me>
 <vacmpa$1d5dd$1@dont-email.me>
 <57c86522e95be7746b2d2864b20d6cd129552990@i2pn2.org>
 <vacr3e$1e36g$1@dont-email.me> <vaddgl$1ghhg$2@dont-email.me>
 <vaensv$1qd66$1@dont-email.me> <vaf886$1sf6p$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2024 16:37:56 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3859932"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vaf886$1sf6p$2@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4847
Lines: 66

On 8/25/24 8:32 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/25/2024 2:53 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-08-24 19:49:42 +0000, Fred. Zwarts said:
>>
>>> Op 24.aug.2024 om 16:35 schreef olcott:
>>>> On 8/24/2024 9:27 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>> Am Sat, 24 Aug 2024 08:21:45 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>> On 8/24/2024 3:47 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>> Op 23.aug.2024 om 23:40 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>> On 8/23/2024 2:24 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Am Thu, 22 Aug 2024 12:42:59 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Only IF it will in fact keep repeating, which is not the case.
>>>>>>>> Only IF it *WOULD* in fact keep repeating, *which is the case*
>>>>>>> It is the case only if you still cheat with the Root variable, which
>>>>>>> makes that HHH processes a non-input, when it is requested to 
>>>>>>> predict
>>>>>>> the behaviour of the input.
>>>>>> The fact is that it *WOULD* in fact keep repeating,
>>>>>> thus *IT DOES* get the correct answer.
>>>>
>>>>> The simulated, aborting HHH would… abort.
>>>>
>>>> <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
>>>>
>>> Why repeating this over and over again if you do not understand the 
>>> words?
>>> Sipser agreed to 'If ... correctly simulates ... correctly determines 
>>> ...'.
>>> There is no correct simulation, there is no correct determination, so 
>>> the remainder of the sentence does not apply.
>>> Maybe you should read it a few more times, until you understand what 
>>> 'if' means.
>>> Maybe use a dictionary to learn the meaning of English words.
>>
>> For certain words like "if" and "would" a grammar book might be better.
>>
> 
> "IF" AKA within the following assumed premises:
>    {HHH emulates N instructions of DDD according to the
>     semantics of the x86 language}
> 
> "UNTIL" (this condition is met)
> {a preexisting correct non-halting behavior
>   pattern has been matched by these N instructions}
> 

But it doesn't present "correct non-halting behavior patteren" since 
that exact same pattern can produce a halting simulation.

To correctly determine something, it can't be false.

And since HHH is the code that it is, if it will abort, that possiblity 
will show up in the simulation, so it must take that into account, or it 
isn't properly simulating those instructions.

Remebmer HHH1 simulated that EXACT SAME input, and will see the exact 
same first N instructions (at least if HHH is a pure function) and thus 
the fact that HHH1 reaches a final state in its simulation PROVES that 
it isn't a "non-halting pattern"

Sorry, you are just working under the burden of having false premises 
filling your thought process. When your logic system has LIES as some of 
its premsises, it doesn't give the right answers.