Re: Liar detector: Fred, Richard, Joes and Alan --- Ben's agreement

On 7/4/24 4:18 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/4/2024 3:04 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 04.jul.2024 om 21:45 schreef olcott:

On 7/4/2024 2:40 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 04.jul.2024 om 21:30 schreef olcott:

On 7/4/2024 2:26 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

>
I showed that HHH cannot possibly correctly simulate itself.

>
I proved otherwise, Liar.
https://liarparadox.org/HHH(DDD)_Full_Trace.pdf

>
No, this trace supports my claim. When we look at this trace we see that

>
HHH is simulating itself simulating DDD until it sees
that DDD is calling HHH in recursive simulation such
that neither the simulated DDD nor the simulated HHH
can possibly stop running unless HHH aborts its DDD.

>
The 'unless HHH aborts ...' is irrelevant and misleading,

 Not at all. Not in the least little bit.
A halt decider must PREDICT what its input would do.
Professor Sipser recognized this as inherently correct.

Which means that the concept of "Correct Simulation" must answer the question of the program represented by the input Halting or not. (and nut just if the decider can simulate to that point).
Since it turns out that D(D) will Halt if H(D,D) tries to use this under your interpretation and stops its simulation and returns 0, that shows that your interpretation can not be correct.

 Introduction to the Theory of Computation, by Michael Sipser
https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation-Michael-Sipser/dp/113318779X/
 He is the #1 best selling author of textbooks on computation
theory. Ben did contact him to verify that he did say this.
 <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
      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>
 Ben also agreed that D correctly simulated by H DOES MEET THIS CRITERIA.
 On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
 > I don't think that is the shell game.  PO really /has/ an H (it's
 > trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines that P(P)
 > *would* never stop running *unless* aborted.
...
 > But H determines (correctly) that D would not halt if it were not
 > halted.  That much is a truism.