Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Fred. Zwarts" Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Anyone that disagrees with this is not telling the truth --- V5 --- Professor Sipser Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2024 10:21:48 +0200 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 67 Message-ID: References:

<431deaa157cdae1cae73a1b24268a61cf8ec2c1c@i2pn2.org> <7a1c569a699e79bfa146affbbae3eac7b91cd263@i2pn2.org> <729cc551062c13875686d266a5453a488058e81c@i2pn2.org> <148bf4dd91f32379a6d81a621fb7ec3fc1e00db0@i2pn2.org>

MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2024 10:21:49 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e99b3420d614456ec9d4419799dd172a"; logging-data="403381"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18z/M+JTRg2+J2SwGVh/DBq" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:PzOtG2QQywqMQw4/V2t1/zNM+lI= Content-Language: en-GB In-Reply-To: Bytes: 4794 Op 21.Aug.2024 OM 20:52 screech Wolcott: > On 8/21/2024 1:30 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >> Op 21.aug.2024 om 14:30 schreef olcott: >>> 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. >>>> >>> >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> >>> 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 is only complete if it includes all functions called by D. >> Including the H that has the same behaviour as the simulating H. >> >>> (b) As measured by the correct partial simulation of D by H >> >> Which does not really give a clue, because either a full simulation is >> needed, or an algorithm that detects non-halting. >> >>> (c) When H would never abort its simulation of F >> >> No, it must predict the behaviour of the input, including the H that >> makes a partial simulation, not the behaviour of a hypothetical non- >> input that does not abort. This means to predict the behaviour of the >> D with the H that is called by D with the same behaviour as the >> simulating H. No cheating with a Root variable to give the simulated H >> a behaviour different from the simulating H. >> >>> (d) This includes H simulating itself simulating D >> >> Itself, means the H with the same behaviour as the simulating H, i.e. >> doing a partial simulation. >> >> Anything else is cheating and making a prediction for a non-input. > > You keep missing the idea that HHH does a partial > simulation of DDD to predict what would happen if > this HHH never aborted its simulation of DDD. > > You keep missing the idea that HHH must predict the behaviour of its input (the HHH that does a partial simulation), not the behaviour of a different hypothetical non-input (the HHH that never aborted). There is a reason why HHH has an input. If it were correct to predict the behaviour of a hypothetical non-input, then HHH would not need an input. Are you still cheating with the Root variable to change the behaviour of HHH from an input to a non-input?