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

On 7/5/2024 2:56 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-04 20:18:16 +0000, olcott said:
 

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.

 "When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not,
nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the
prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him."
Deuteronomy 18:22
 That is, preditions and predictors must be tested and not taken serioulsy
unless the pass the test.
 In case of halt deciders, that means that when we know what the halt decider
has predicted we run the computation described by the input to the halt
decider and see whether it halts and complare what we see to the prediction.
 

It is not the job of a simulating termination analyzer
to get stuck in recursive simulation. It is the job
of a simulating termination analyzer to correctly
predict this and take action to prevent it.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer