Sujet : Re: Liar detector: Fred, Richard, Joes and Alan --- Ben's agreement
De : noreply (at) *nospam* example.org (joes)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 05. Jul 2024, 12:02:25
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <f82c26fb8d611c1f01f28c34105972a8bebff4db@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
User-Agent : Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a git.gnome.org/pan2)
Am Thu, 04 Jul 2024 15:18:16 -0500 schrieb olcott:
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:
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,
because in fact HHH DOES abort.
Not at all. Not in the least little bit.
A halt decider must PREDICT what its input would do.
Which is that HHH aborts and does not run forever.
Professor Sipser recognized this as inherently correct.
It is not the huge deal you make it out to be.
Ben also agreed that D correctly simulated by H DOES MEET THIS CRITERIA.
Where does he say that? D IS aborted, so the condition doesn’t match.
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.
-- Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 16:52:17 -0500 schrieb olcott:Objectively I am a genius.
…