Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: V5 --- Professor Sipser
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2024 13:24:51 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <3bd0f0cf0743738e3b50264274ad6ef677b905f1@i2pn2.org>
References: <va104l$376ed$4@dont-email.me>
	<cd375f68f97a737988bab8c1332b7802509ff6ea@i2pn2.org>
	<va13po$376ed$7@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> <va5bo3$3v0rh$2@dont-email.me>
	<va5d1u$3vepf$2@dont-email.me> <va6ses$c9tl$2@dont-email.me>
	<va7d4u$ebdg$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2024 13:24:51 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3438386"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 2827
Lines: 29

Am Thu, 22 Aug 2024 08:06:37 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 8/22/2024 3:21 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 21.Aug.2024 OM 20:52 olcott:
>>>
>>> You keep missing the idea that HHH does a partial simulation of DDD to
>>> predict what would happen if this HHH never aborted its simulation of
>>> DDD.
>> You keep missing the idea that HHH must predict the behaviour of its
>> input (the HHH that does a partial simulation), not the behaviour of a
>> different hypothetical non-input (the HHH that never aborted).
> 
> The would be stupid. If that was the case then HHH could ignore its
> input and accept every input as halting including this one:
> void Infinite_Loop()
> {
>    HERE: goto HERE;
> }
But that program doesn’t call its own (aborting) simulator HHH.
DDD changes with its simulator, because it calls it.

>> There is a reason why HHH has an input. If it were correct to predict
>> the behaviour of a hypothetical non-input, then HHH would not need an
>> input.
> That is stupid
Yes, it would.
>> Are you still cheating with the Root variable to change the behaviour
>> of HHH from an input to a non-input?
-- 
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.