| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<b19eb2a29dacfa67f2f9ced0d03234e980f4c985@i2pn2.org> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!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, 21 Aug 2024 23:35:56 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <b19eb2a29dacfa67f2f9ced0d03234e980f4c985@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> <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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2024 03:35:56 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="3400097"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <va6b4n$7boc$1@dont-email.me> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 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. H, to be correct, needs to report on the actual behavior of the actual input it is given, which is the D that calls itself. That actual behavior is determined by what that D, that calls the H that does exactly the same thing as the H that is claimed to be a correct Halt Decider does, and thus returns that same answer to D (if it returns an answer to anyone), and then acts on it. This same behavior can be seen with a CORRECT and COMPLETE simulation by a machine that DOES a correct and complete simulation of this whole program (the D that calls the H that returns the supposedly correct answer to D, and then it acts on it) which, BY DEFINITION, will simulate exactly the same results as the direct execution of D. Glad you agree that since D *WILL* halt if H returns the non-hatling answer, that it is wrong, even though H's partial simulation never could see that behavior because it happens after H aborts its simulation.