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

On 7/5/24 8:19 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/5/2024 3:32 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 04.jul.2024 om 22:18 schreef 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:

>
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.

>
Yes and when it must predict what a simulator that is programmed to abort would do, it should predict that the it will abort and halt. If it predicts something different, then it is incorrect.
If it aborts and ignore that last part of the input, it is incorrect.
>

 When a bear is running at you to kill you it is not
enough that you only predict that you will shoot the
bear. You must actually shoot the bear or you will be killed.

And if you don't have a big enough gun, you die.
H can do NOTHING to change the behavior of the input, so it doesn't have a big enough gun to kill it.
If the bear was blind, you might be able to zig or zag and get out of its way, but this bear knows exactly what you are going to do, just like a heat seeking missle, so it WILL catch you.
So, H is just dead as a Halt Decider. It turns out that every Halt Decider has a machine like H^ that just is its kryptonite. This just shows that the generative power of computation is more powerful then the deductive power of it.

 

Professor Sipser recognized this as inherently correct.

>
But that did not apply, because its context was a *correct* simulation. His agreement does not include *incorrect* simulations.
Sipser would agree that HHH, when aborting a simulation of itself and missing the last part of the input is incorrect.
>

>
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

>
Note the word 'correctly'. So, it does not apply to the simulation of HHH by itself, which cannot possibly correctly simulate itself.
>

     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.
>
>
>
>

>