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 10:21:48 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 67
Message-ID: <va6ses$c9tl$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> <va5bo3$3v0rh$2@dont-email.me>
 <va5d1u$3vepf$2@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 10:21:49 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e99b3420d614456ec9d4419799dd172a";
	logging-data="403381"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18z/M+JTRg2+J2SwGVh/DBq"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:PzOtG2QQywqMQw4/V2t1/zNM+lI=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <va5d1u$3vepf$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4794

Op 21.Aug.2024 OM 20:52 screech Wolcott:
> On 8/21/2024 1:30 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> You keep missing the idea that HHH does a partial
> simulation of DDD to predict what would happen if
> this HHH never aborted its simulation of DDD.
> 
> 
You keep missing the idea that HHH must predict the behaviour of its 
input (the HHH that does a partial simulation), not the behaviour of a 
different hypothetical non-input (the HHH that never aborted).
There is a reason why HHH has an input. If it were correct to predict 
the behaviour of a hypothetical non-input, then HHH would not need an input.
Are you still cheating with the Root variable to change the behaviour of 
HHH from an input to a non-input?