Sujet : Re: V5 --- Professor Sipser
De : F.Zwarts (at) *nospam* HetNet.nl (Fred. Zwarts)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 24. Aug 2024, 09:47:56
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <vac6ns$1atfd$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
Op 23.aug.2024 om 23:40 schreef olcott:
On 8/23/2024 2:24 AM, joes wrote:
Am Thu, 22 Aug 2024 12:42:59 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 8/22/2024 12:28 PM, joes wrote:
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:
>
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.
>
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.
That is not what the words mean.
HHH(DDD) simulates itself simulating DDD until it has the basis to prove
that this will keep repeating until aborted. Then the outermost directly
executed HHH aborts its own DDD.
Only IF it will in fact keep repeating, which is not the case.
Only IF it *WOULD* in fact keep repeating, *which is the case*
Only IF it *WOULD* in fact keep repeating, *which is the case*
Only IF it *WOULD* in fact keep repeating, *which is the case*
Only IF it *WOULD* in fact keep repeating, *which is the case*
It is the case only if you still cheat with the Root variable, which makes that HHH processes a non-input, when it is requested to predict the behaviour of the input.
The input given to HHH in fact halts, as is seen in the direct execution and in the correct simulation by HHH1.
But HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly.
…