Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: joes Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: V5 --- Professor Sipser Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2024 17:28:46 -0000 (UTC) Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: References: <431deaa157cdae1cae73a1b24268a61cf8ec2c1c@i2pn2.org> <7a1c569a699e79bfa146affbbae3eac7b91cd263@i2pn2.org> <729cc551062c13875686d266a5453a488058e81c@i2pn2.org> <148bf4dd91f32379a6d81a621fb7ec3fc1e00db0@i2pn2.org> <5591ff08ed8f7b4bdf33813681e156b775efe0ec@i2pn2.org> <26fadbf7b8cb5f93dbe18bffeff6e959251f9892@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2024 17:28:46 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="3438386"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM"; User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a git.gnome.org/pan2) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Bytes: 4516 Lines: 52 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: >>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>> (d) This includes H simulating itself simulating D >>>>>>>> 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. >>>> 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 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. -- Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math: It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.