Re: Anyone that disagrees with this is not telling the truth --- V5 --- Professor Sipser

Op 28.aug.2024 om 14:46 schreef olcott:

On 8/28/2024 7:34 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 28.aug.2024 om 14:07 schreef olcott:

On 8/28/2024 4:00 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 27.aug.2024 om 15:32 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
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>
HHH is only required to correctly predict whether or not DDD
*would never stop running unless aborted*

And since DDD is calling an HHH that is programmed to detect the 'special condition', so that it aborts and halts, DDD halts as well and

>
*THIS IS YOUR REASONING*
If you are hungry and never eat you will remain hungry.
You are hungry and eat becoming no longer hungry.
*This proves that you never needed to eat*

>
No, apparently, your understanding of logic English is very poor.

 HHH simulates DDD until it has inductive evidence that
in the purely hypothetical case where a different HHH
would never abort its emulation of DDD that DDD would
never terminate normally.

Apparently you still do not understand that HHH should process its input, not your dreams of a pure hypothetical non-input.
The input has a HHH that uses the 'special condition' to halt its simulation, so 'never terminate normally', is only in your dreams, not in the input to be processed.
This HHH, of course, is incorrect, but it halts.

 If we don't do it this way then infinite loops always halt.
 

There are no infinite loops in the input, so, no need to start dreaming of non-terminating hypothetical inputs.