Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!news.swapon.de!news.in-chemnitz.de!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.bofh.team!paganini.bofh.team!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Anyone that disagrees with this is not telling the truth --- V5 --- Professor Sipser
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2024 11:23:09 +0300
Organization: To protect and to server
Message-ID: <vak2dd$2lg1o$1@paganini.bofh.team>
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-Info: paganini.bofh.team; logging-data="2801720"; posting-host="ArmERdYYIOOJVi41tgCxGQ.user.paganini.bofh.team"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@bofh.team"; posting-account="9dIQLXBM7WM9KzA+yjdR4A";
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.3
Bytes: 7160
Lines: 119

On 2024-08-22 04:22:11 +0000, olcott said:

> 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.

That is relevant only if the input specifies that the behaviour
of that different HHH is a part of the behaviour of DDD.

-- 
Mikko