Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Anyone that disagrees with this is not telling the truth --- V5
 --- Professor Sipser
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2024 20:30:27 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 52
Message-ID: <va5bo3$3v0rh$2@dont-email.me>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2024 20:30:27 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c35bd23cdeef2c979c84d642c8787936";
	logging-data="4162417"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1872OMHnAUDPr1w/5hQb0AK"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ExOg/AWHww6KyCKtkYyd7TRBKX0=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <va4mle$3s0hu$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3889

Op 21.aug.2024 om 14:30 schreef olcott:
> 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 is only complete if it includes all functions called by D.
Including the H that has the same behaviour as the simulating H.

> (b) As measured by the correct partial simulation of D by H

Which does not really give a clue, because either a full simulation is 
needed, or an algorithm that detects non-halting.

> (c) When H would never abort its simulation of F

No, it must predict the behaviour of the input, including the H that 
makes a partial simulation, not the behaviour of a hypothetical 
non-input that does not abort. This means to predict the behaviour of 
the D with the H that is called by D with the same behaviour as the 
simulating H. No cheating with a Root variable to give the simulated H a 
behaviour different from the simulating H.

> (d) This includes H simulating itself simulating D

Itself, means the H with the same behaviour as the simulating H, i.e. 
doing a partial simulation.

Anything else is cheating and making a prediction for a non-input.