Re: V5 --- Professor Sipser

On 8/21/24 2:50 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/21/2024 1:30 PM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 21 Aug 2024 07:30:36 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 8/21/2024 3:01 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-08-21 03:01:38 +0000, olcott said:

>
Professor Sipser must have understood that an HHH(DDD)
that does abort is supposed predict what would happen if it never
aborted.

That is not a recursive simulation.

Professor Sipser understood that what is not a part of the text is not
a part of the agreement. What H is required to predict is fully
determined by the words "halt decider H". The previous word
"simulating" refers to an implementation detail and does not affect the
requirements.

<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>

*if D actually calls the H that aborts (=halts and returns)
>

It is crucial to the requirements in that it specifies that H is
required to predict (a) The behavior specified by the finite string D
(b) As measured by the correct partial simulation of D by H (c) When H
would never abort its simulation of F (d) This includes H simulating
itself simulating D

c is wrong. H does abort, and so does it when called by D.
>

 The subject is not right or wrong, the subject
is what this guy:
https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation-Michael-Sipser/dp/113318779X
(Professor Sipser) agreed to.
 

But it also must be interpreted by the rules he uses, which are well published so we don't need to "presume" what they are.
And that means thatthe "input" D, must be a COMPLETE description of the PROGRAM that is D, and thus includes the code of the H it calls, so that code in the description can not be changed. This means when we "Hypothisize" about if H can simulate the input without aborting, if the final H that the D was built on does abort, then this hypothetical H is given the D that calls the aborting H, not itself, so you can't just look at the D built on the hypothetical non-aborting H, like you wan to do.

 

Your words are so obviously crooked that only fool can be fooled.