Re: V5 --- Professor Sipser

On 8/22/24 1:42 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/22/2024 12:28 PM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 21 Aug 2024 23:22:11 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 8/21/2024 10:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/21/24 11:26 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/21/2024 9:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/21/24 9:55 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/21/2024 8:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/21/24 9:23 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:

>

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.

>

(d) This includes H simulating itself simulating D

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.

>

The fact that you don't understand DOES make you stupid. I don't say
you are wrong because you are stupid, you are wrong because the words
you use don't mean what you think they do, and thus your conclusions
are just incorrect.
That you seem to NEVER LEARN is what makes you stupid.

>

Professor Sipser clearly agreed that an H that does a finite
simulation of D is to predict the behavior of an unlimited
simulation of D.

Right, H needs to predict in a finite number of steps, what an
unlimited simulation of this EXACT input, which means that it must
call the H that you claim to be getting the right answer, which is
the H that does abort and return non-halting.

OK then you seem to have this correctly, unless you interpret this as
a self-contradiction.

Why do you think it could be a self-contradiction?
It is an impossiblity for H to correctly do it, but that is why the
Halting Problem is non-computable.

THIS EXACTLY MATCHES THE SIPSER APPROVED CRITERIA The finite HHH(DDD)
emulates itself emulating DDD exactly once and this is sufficient for
this HHH to predict what a different HHH(DDD) do that never aborted its
emulation of its input.

That other HHH still has to simulate the HHH that aborts.
>

 That is not what the words mean.
HHH(DDD) simulates itself simulating DDD until
it has the basis to prove that this will keep
repeating until aborted. Then the outermost
directly executed HHH aborts its own DDD.
 

Nope, You don't understand the meaning of the words, or even, it seems, what a PROGRAM is.
HHH is a program, and thus a defined behavior, and thus DDD has a defined behavior.
HHH, to be CORRECT, needs to answer if the actual DDD that is there will halt whan it is run, which equivalently would be if an unaborted emulation of DDD would reach a final state. Since HHH doesn't do that, it can't use its own partial emulation by itself to establish that (but could possible form a correct induction proof that the unaborted emulation of THIS input would not halt, even though HHH aborts its emulation and returns.
The thing you don't seem to understand is that the decider needs to look at the WHOLE PROGRAM it is given, and not LIE that some other input is what it was actually giiven.
You are just showing you don't understand that truth needs to look at what is, not what we want it to be.