Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Anyone that disagrees with this is not telling the truth --- V5
 --- Professor Sipser
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2024 22:26:15 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 102
Message-ID: <va6b4n$7boc$1@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>
 <5591ff08ed8f7b4bdf33813681e156b775efe0ec@i2pn2.org>
 <va63uu$2fo9$1@dont-email.me>
 <b0a86b6a1343ebb5f9112ae757768a7cbbc770b2@i2pn2.org>
 <va65r8$6ht7$1@dont-email.me>
 <26fadbf7b8cb5f93dbe18bffeff6e959251f9892@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2024 05:26:16 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="62a25b741157347252c8096938b61d22";
	logging-data="241420"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19eExhZZS30e5wgje7RkL5f"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:UhDuANEuXFcdGdJLDndAG9b0UyQ=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <26fadbf7b8cb5f93dbe18bffeff6e959251f9892@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 6351

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.

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