Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: V5 --- Professor Sipser
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2024 13:21:24 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <e12d5d2caec39f6964f567343dad8333a92970fe@i2pn2.org>
References: <va104l$376ed$4@dont-email.me> <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$1@dont-email.me> <va6s5i$c9tl$1@dont-email.me>
	<va7cof$ebdg$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2024 13:21:24 -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: 3712
Lines: 36

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:
> 
> <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>
> 
> 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.

>> Do you still not understand that HHH should predict the behaviour of
>> its input? Why does the HHH have an input, if it is correct to predict
>> the behaviour of a non-input?
>> Are you still cheating with the Root variable to change the input in a
>> non-input?
-- 
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.