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 --- Execution trace of simulating
 termination analyzer HHH on DDD input
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2024 07:45:27 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 72
Message-ID: <vaf917$1sf6p$3@dont-email.me>
References: <va104l$376ed$4@dont-email.me> <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>
 <vaavkc$128hl$1@dont-email.me> <vac6ns$1atfd$1@dont-email.me>
 <vacmpa$1d5dd$1@dont-email.me> <vadd73$1ghhg$1@dont-email.me>
 <vadej5$1h1jn$2@dont-email.me> <vaeuep$1r8qc$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2024 14:45:27 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0a670d0b40a69b9795b0e80c20921477";
	logging-data="1981657"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19HQgZyiGqeph5oJIzfI62t"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:sKpvz4h4bvKSenSs1ASdAYuSZEM=
In-Reply-To: <vaeuep$1r8qc$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5287

On 8/25/2024 4:44 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 24.aug.2024 om 22:08 schreef olcott:
>> On 8/24/2024 2:44 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 24.aug.2024 om 15:21 schreef olcott:
>>>> On 8/24/2024 3:47 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>> Op 23.aug.2024 om 23:40 schreef olcott:
>>>>>> On 8/23/2024 2:24 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>> Am Thu, 22 Aug 2024 12:42:59 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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*
>>>>
>>>>> It is the case only if you still cheat with the Root variable, 
>>>>> which makes that HHH processes a non-input, when it is requested to 
>>>>> predict the behaviour of the input.
>>>>
>>>> <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>
>>>>
>>>> The fact is that it *WOULD* in fact keep repeating,
>>>> thus *IT DOES* get the correct answer.
>>>
>>> The fact is that it only happens because you make it so with cheating 
>>> with the Root variable.
>>
>> That THE DECISION IS CORRECT makes moot how the decision was made.
>> If HHH simply took a wild guess HHH would still be correct.
>>
> 
> Your dream is that it the decision is correct. 

The first part is a tautology. That you fail to understand
that it is a tautology is your failure of understanding and
not my mistake.

On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
 > I don't think that is the shell game.  PO really /has/ an H
 > (it's trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines
 > that P(P) *would* never stop running *unless* aborted.
....
 > But H determines (correctly) that D would not halt if it
 > were not halted.  That much is a truism.

> The fact is that the 
> decision is incorrect. Dreams are no substitute for facts.
> As usual an cheating and incorrect method leads to an incorrect result.
> No matter how much olcott wants it to be correct, or how many times 
> olcott repeats that it is correct, it does not change the fact that such 
> a simulation is incorrect, because it is unable to reach the end of a 
> halting program.
> Olcott's own claim that the simulated HHH does not reach its end 
> confirms it. The trace he has shown also proves that HHH cannot reach 
> the end of its own simulation. So, his own claims prove that it is true 
> that HHH cannot possibly simulate itself up to the end, which makes the 
> simulation incomplete and, therefore, incorrect.
> Dreams are no substitute for logic proofs.
> 


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