Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
Am Wed, 21 Aug 2024 07:30:36 -0500 schrieb olcott:The subject is not right or wrong, the subjectOn 8/21/2024 3:01 AM, Mikko wrote:That is not a recursive simulation.On 2024-08-21 03:01:38 +0000, olcott said:>
Professor Sipser must have understood that an HHH(DDD)
that does abort is supposed predict what would happen if it never
aborted.*if D actually calls the H that aborts (=halts and returns)Professor Sipser understood that what is not a part of the text is not<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
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.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
It is crucial to the requirements in that it specifies that H isc is wrong. H does abort, and so does it when called by D.
required to predict (a) The behavior specified by the finite string D
(b) As measured by the correct partial simulation of D by H (c) When H
would never abort its simulation of F (d) This includes H simulating
itself simulating D
--Your words are so obviously crooked that only fool can be fooled.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.