| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<va6s5i$c9tl$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Anyone that disagrees with this is not telling the truth --- V5 --- Professor Sipser Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2024 10:16:49 +0200 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 124 Message-ID: <va6s5i$c9tl$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> <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; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2024 10:16:50 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e99b3420d614456ec9d4419799dd172a"; logging-data="403381"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/iWPvIcOh97j+BF1TUrlZx" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:IW8l4gIQdEZ/E5KaBNlV2iMBEgQ= Content-Language: en-GB In-Reply-To: <va6edj$8f0p$1@dont-email.me> Bytes: 7509 Op 22.aug.2024 om 06:22 schreef 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: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *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. >> > > 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. > But that different hypothetical HHH is a non-input. Do you still not understand that HHH should predict the behaviour of its input? Why does the HHH have an input, if it is correct to predict the behaviour of a non-input? Are you still cheating with the Root variable to change the input in a non-input?