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

Op 28.aug.2024 om 16:53 schreef olcott:

On 8/28/2024 9:38 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

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.
>

 void Infinite_Loop()
{
   HERE: goto HERE;
   return;
}
 In other words you are saying that HHH must report that
infinite loops halt even though halting is reaching a
final halt state and infinite loops cannot possibly reach
a final halt state.
 Your replies have stepped over the line of an honest dialogue.
 

No, you are dishonest by putting words in my mouth that I did not say.
I said HHH should report that a *halting* program halt.
You make it that I said that HHH must report that *infinite loops* halt.
It is clear that you do not understand the difference between  infinite loop and a halting program.
No wonder that you think that a halting program is an infinite loop.
You keep dreaming of infinite loops and infinite recursion even when the finite string does not specify such a thing.
HHH simulating itself looks a bit like:
void Finite_Recursion (int N) {
   if (N > 0) Finite_Recursion (N - 1);
}
But you think that this is the same as Infinite_loop.
There is no infinite loop. There is no infinite recursion. There is only a HHH that after a few recursions sees a 'special condition' after which it stops the simulation.
Although this detection is incorrect, it makes that HHH returns to DDD and DDD halts. No infinite loop. No infinite recursion. That is the semantics of the x86 language of the finite  string.
This is what the conclusion of HHH would be, if it did it correctly.
But HHH cannot do it correctly, because HHH cannot possibly simulate itself up to the end.
We see this error of HHH in:
        int main() {
          return HHH(main);
        }
where HHH halts and reports that it does not halt.