Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Liar detector: Fred, Richard, Joes and Alan --- Ben's agreement
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2024 15:18:16 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 56
Message-ID: <v67028$2t9el$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v644pn$29t4h$3@dont-email.me> <v645v1$29pag$3@dont-email.me>
 <v646v5$2agfo$1@dont-email.me> <v647p3$29pag$6@dont-email.me>
 <v6480h$2ape0$1@dont-email.me> <v648nk$29pag$8@dont-email.me>
 <v64as3$2bc8m$1@dont-email.me> <v64drn$29pag$10@dont-email.me>
 <v64e92$2bvgc$1@dont-email.me> <v65juc$2lui5$2@dont-email.me>
 <v665c9$2oun1$4@dont-email.me> <v66t0p$2n56v$1@dont-email.me>
 <v66t7p$2srk8$1@dont-email.me> <v66tql$2n56v$3@dont-email.me>
 <v66u56$2suut$1@dont-email.me> <v66v8i$2n56v$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2024 22:18:16 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8ec8ab09a9c087279b96ae2505557d8c";
	logging-data="3057109"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX189ddF8oZiIrQPgChr9tRJI"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Xh/aulPmCI8GnEBn8t46bQGCJJo=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v66v8i$2n56v$4@dont-email.me>

On 7/4/2024 3:04 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 04.jul.2024 om 21:45 schreef olcott:
>> On 7/4/2024 2:40 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 04.jul.2024 om 21:30 schreef olcott:
>>>> On 7/4/2024 2:26 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I showed that HHH cannot possibly correctly simulate itself.
>>>>
>>>> I proved otherwise, Liar.
>>>> https://liarparadox.org/HHH(DDD)_Full_Trace.pdf
>>>
>>> No, this trace supports my claim. When we look at this trace we see that 
>>
>> HHH is simulating itself simulating DDD until it sees
>> that DDD is calling HHH in recursive simulation such
>> that neither the simulated DDD nor the simulated HHH
>> can possibly stop running unless HHH aborts its DDD.
> 
> The 'unless HHH aborts ...' is irrelevant and misleading, 

Not at all. Not in the least little bit.
A halt decider must PREDICT what its input would do.
Professor Sipser recognized this as inherently correct.

Introduction to the Theory of Computation, by Michael Sipser
https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation-Michael-Sipser/dp/113318779X/

He is the #1 best selling author of textbooks on computation
theory. Ben did contact him to verify that he did say this.

<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>

Ben also agreed that D correctly simulated by H DOES MEET THIS CRITERIA.

On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
 > I don't think that is the shell game.  PO really /has/ an H (it's
 > trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines that P(P)
 > *would* never stop running *unless* aborted.
....
 > But H determines (correctly) that D would not halt if it were not
 > halted.  That much is a truism.




-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer