Re: Anyone that disagrees with this is not telling the truth --- V5 --- Professor Sipser

On 8/21/24 8:35 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/21/2024 7:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/21/24 8:30 AM, olcott wrote:

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

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

>
*We are only talking about one single point*
Professor Sipser must have understood that an HHH(DDD)
that does abort is supposed predict what would happen
if it never aborted.

>
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>
>
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

>
Which must include *ALL* of the code of the PROGRAM D, which includes ALL the code of everything it calls, which includes H, so with your system, changing H gives a DIFFERENT input, which is not comparable in behavior to this input.
>

(b) As measured by the correct partial simulation of D by H

>
Nope, by H correctly predicting, with a partial simulation of D by H if possible, if the COMPLETE simulaiton by a "hypothetical H" replacing H but not changing the input, would never halt.
>

(c) When H would never abort its simulation of F

>
Which, since that isn't the case, put you into the realm of fantasy.
>

(d) This includes H simulating itself simulating D

>
Right, H must CORRECTLY predict the behavior of an UNABORTED emulation of its input, and if, and only if, it can determine that such an emulation would never halt, then it can abort its emulation.
>
Note, that is the emulation of this exact input, including D calling the ORIGINAL H, not changing to the Hypothetical, since by the rules of the field, the input is a fixed string, and fully defines the behavior of the input.
>

 Your ADD prevents you from paying enough attention to see
that you are contradicting yourself.
 Mike seems to do the same thing yet not because of ADD
it seems to be out of pure disrespect for me.
 

So, what is the contradiction, something that isn't just you misdefining terms.
I bet this will be just another of in your long list of claims that you just can't provide the actual evidence for.
Remember, you are still working in the classical Computation Theory with classical logic, as you haven't published an actual definition your your new ideas and then worked the systems to show your version of these field and the equivalent theories.
So, you need to meet the actual definitions, even if you don't know them.