Path: ...!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: V5 --- Professor Sipser
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2024 16:40:28 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 67
Message-ID: <vaavkc$128hl$1@dont-email.me>
References: <va104l$376ed$4@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$1@dont-email.me>
 <e20689d26c224e4923146d425843348539ce6065@i2pn2.org>
 <va7tb3$h3la$1@dont-email.me>
 <2c6dfb2e8cdafc17fd833599dfba3843f56a281a@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2024 23:40:29 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f8a0fb7d826cb38436ab23242cfcae90";
	logging-data="1122869"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+CLVeBYVe3cnzQb6Gbg4LS"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:m9wS8439uXfsszPYa3idc1NRoTk=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <2c6dfb2e8cdafc17fd833599dfba3843f56a281a@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 5235

On 8/23/2024 2:24 AM, joes wrote:
> Am Thu, 22 Aug 2024 12:42:59 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>> On 8/22/2024 12:28 PM, joes wrote:
>>> Am Wed, 21 Aug 2024 23:22:11 -0500 schrieb 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:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>>>>> 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 do 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.
>>> That other HHH still has to simulate the HHH that aborts.
>> That is not what the words mean.
>> HHH(DDD) simulates itself simulating DDD until it has the basis to prove
>> that this will keep repeating until aborted. Then the outermost directly
>> executed HHH aborts its own DDD.

> Only IF it will in fact keep repeating, which is not the case.

Only IF it *WOULD* in fact keep repeating, *which is the case*
Only IF it *WOULD* in fact keep repeating, *which is the case*
Only IF it *WOULD* in fact keep repeating, *which is the case*
Only IF it *WOULD* in fact keep repeating, *which is the case*

Please pay much closer attention. I want to fully defend my
legacy before I die of POD24. I am not here to engage in head games.

<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

> HHH is partially simulating itself, so it should at least return
> that it halts.
> 


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