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 17:28:46 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <e20689d26c224e4923146d425843348539ce6065@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>
	<b19eb2a29dacfa67f2f9ced0d03234e980f4c985@i2pn2.org>
	<va6edj$8f0p$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2024 17:28:46 -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: 4516
Lines: 52

Am Wed, 21 Aug 2024 23:22:11 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> 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:

>>>>>>>>> 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.

>>>>>>>>> (d) This includes H simulating itself simulating D
>>>>>>>> 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.

>>>> 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 do 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 other HHH still has to simulate the HHH that aborts.

-- 
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.