Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: V5 --- Professor Sipser
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2024 22:31:40 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <a088f0304d7d70cc24fcf1836a79723e5877709d@i2pn2.org>
References: <va104l$376ed$4@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$6@dont-email.me>
 <014d24acf43dc57225d2f616618267dd6f94bb8d@i2pn2.org>
 <va8o7n$o6er$1@dont-email.me>
 <c681fb4eb0d1402c5478af3876da12e423d36f2b@i2pn2.org>
 <va8p99$ok13$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2024 02:31:40 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3524973"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <va8p99$ok13$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4722
Lines: 65

On 8/22/24 9:39 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/22/2024 8:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 8/22/24 9:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 8/22/2024 7:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> 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:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <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.
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> PREDICT HYPOTHETICAL BEHAVIOR
>> Nope, Predict the ACTUAL behavior.
>>
>> You are just admitting you are lying about the 
> 
> That is NOT what the words actually say.
> I hope you don't get condemned to Hell over this.
> 

Yes, it is, at least when you understand the TECHNICAL meaning of the 
words in Computation Theory.
Something you are just IGNORANT of.

Sorry, you are just proving your utter stupidty by your instance of 
talking about something you haven't actually studied by just think you know.