| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<2c54524dae8421cfc64c1e71238218fb4d2d26ec@i2pn2.org> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
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: Anyone that disagrees with this is not telling the truth --- V5 --- Professor Sipser Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2024 19:39:41 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <2c54524dae8421cfc64c1e71238218fb4d2d26ec@i2pn2.org> References: <va104l$376ed$4@dont-email.me> <d42e5d30ea5f1c067283cb04d8a7293e2117188e@i2pn2.org> <va24hl$3cvgv$1@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> <vak2dd$2lg1o$1@paganini.bofh.team> <vakkha$30fkq$1@dont-email.me> <vamovj$3dl83$1@dont-email.me> <van3tu$3f6c0$4@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2024 23:39:41 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="74090"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird In-Reply-To: <van3tu$3f6c0$4@dont-email.me> Content-Language: en-US X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Bytes: 10944 Lines: 201 On 8/28/24 8:07 AM, olcott wrote: > On 8/28/2024 4:00 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >> Op 27.aug.2024 om 15:32 schreef olcott: >>> On 8/27/2024 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2024-08-22 04:22:11 +0000, olcott said: >>>> >>>>> On 8/21/2024 10:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 8/21/24 11:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 8/21/2024 9:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 8/21/24 9:55 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 8/21/2024 8:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 8/21/24 9:23 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 8/21/2024 7:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/21/24 8:30 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/21/2024 3:01 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-08-21 03:01:38 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *We are only talking about one single point* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Professor Sipser must have understood that an HHH(DDD) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that does abort is supposed predict what would happen >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if it never aborted. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Professor Sipser understood that what is not a part of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> text >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not a part of the agreement. What H is required to predict >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is fully determined by the words "halt decider H". The >>>>>>>>>>>>>> previous >>>>>>>>>>>>>> word "simulating" refers to an implementation detail and does >>>>>>>>>>>>>> not affect the requirements. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <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> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It is crucial to the requirements in that it specifies that >>>>>>>>>>>>> H is required to predict >>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) The behavior specified by the finite string D >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Which must include *ALL* of the code of the PROGRAM D, which >>>>>>>>>>>> includes ALL the code of everything it calls, which includes >>>>>>>>>>>> H, so with your system, changing H gives a DIFFERENT input, >>>>>>>>>>>> which is not comparable in behavior to this input. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) As measured by the correct partial simulation of D by H >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, by H correctly predicting, with a partial simulation >>>>>>>>>>>> of D by H if possible, if the COMPLETE simulaiton by a >>>>>>>>>>>> "hypothetical H" replacing H but not changing the input, >>>>>>>>>>>> would never halt. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> (c) When H would never abort its simulation of F >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Which, since that isn't the case, put you into the realm of >>>>>>>>>>>> fantasy. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> (d) This includes H simulating itself simulating D >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Right, H must CORRECTLY predict the behavior of an UNABORTED >>>>>>>>>>>> emulation of its input, and if, and only if, it can >>>>>>>>>>>> determine that such an emulation would never halt, then it >>>>>>>>>>>> can abort its emulation. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Note, that is the emulation of this exact input, including D >>>>>>>>>>>> calling the ORIGINAL H, not changing to the Hypothetical, >>>>>>>>>>>> since by the rules of the field, the input is a fixed >>>>>>>>>>>> string, and fully defines the behavior of the input. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You are contradicting yourself. >>>>>>>>>>> Your ADD may prevent you from >>>>>>>>>>> concentrating well enough to see this. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I was right, you couldn't name it so you are just admiting >>>>>>>>>> that you are a liar trying to create an ad hominem attack that >>>>>>>>>> failed. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I have been over this same point again and again and again and >>>>>>>>> your "rebuttal" is changing the subject or calling me stupid. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What "change of subject", I just point out what the words you >>>>>>>> try to use actually mean, and why your claims are wrong by the >>>>>>>> rules of the system you claim to be working in. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The fact that you don't understand DOES make you stupid. I don't >>>>>>>> say you are wrong because you are stupid, you are wrong because >>>>>>>> the words you use don't mean what you think they do, and thus >>>>>>>> your conclusions are just incorrect. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That you seem to NEVER LEARN is what makes you stupid. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Professor Sipser clearly agreed that an H that does >>>>>>>>> a finite simulation of D is to predict the behavior >>>>>>>>> of an unlimited simulation of D. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Right, H needs to predict in a finite number of steps, what an >>>>>>>> unlimited simulation of this EXACT input, which means that it >>>>>>>> must call the H that you claim to be getting the right answer, >>>>>>>> which is the H that does abort and return non-halting. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> OK then you seem to have this correctly, unless you interpret >>>>>>> this as a self-contradiction. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Why do you think it could be a self-contradiction? >>>>>> >>>>>> It is an impossiblity for H to correctly due it, but that is why >>>>>> the Halting Problem is non-computable. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> That is relevant only if the input specifies that the behaviour >>>> of that different HHH is a part of the behaviour of DDD. >>>> >>> >>> <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 >>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022> >>> >>> HHH is only required to correctly predict whether or not DDD >>> *would never stop running unless aborted* >> And since DDD is calling an HHH that is programmed to detect the >> 'special condition', so that it aborts and halts, DDD halts as well and > > *THIS IS YOUR REASONING* > If you are hungry and never eat you will remain hungry. > You are hungry and eat becoming no longer hungry. > *This proves that you never needed to eat* Nope, that is BAD reasoning as it isn't an appropriate analogy. > > When the emulation of DDD is aborted > THIS DOES NOT COUNT AS DDD HALTING No, but the fact that the direct running of DDD, or the giving of DDD ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========