Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Fred. Zwarts" Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: V5 --- Professor Sipser Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2024 10:25:42 +0200 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 40 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; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2024 10:25:43 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="df4aa3cb7f8e2c18cf9aa7efa47ca66a"; logging-data="895587"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/pEJd2uo1flZAJ3u+ttV+c" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:Ib5+yKtaQKhTukIetrBHGDs9+pM= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-GB Bytes: 3970 Op 22.aug.2024 om 15:36 schreef olcott: > On 8/22/2024 8:21 AM, joes wrote: >> Am Thu, 22 Aug 2024 07:59:59 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>> On 8/22/2024 3:16 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>> Op 22.aug.2024 om 06:22 schreef olcott: >>> >>> >>>       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. >>> >>> >>> We swap the word "determines" for "predicts" >>> When we swap thew word "halt decider" for "termination analyzer" the >>> above is translated from computer science into software engineering. >>> The second half proves that this is the H that aborts that is making the >>> prediction of the behavior of D when emulated by a hypothetical version >>> of itself then never aborts. >> >>>>> 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. >>>> But that different hypothetical HHH is a non-input. >>> HHH is supposed to predict what the behavior of DDD would be if it did >>> not abort its emulation of DDD that is what the words that Professor >>> agreed to mean. >> If IT didn’t abort DDD calling its aborting self. >> > > I don't know how you twist words to get that. > HHH is required to predict the behavior of DDD > as if every HHH had its abort code removed. > That is twisting the words. HHH is required to predict the behaviour of its input *without any modifications*. So, the 'as if' is a dream that makes the reasoning invalid. It is not allowed to substitute a dream for a fact.