Sujet : Re: V5 --- Professor Sipser --- Execution trace of simulating termination analyzer HHH on DDD input
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 24. Aug 2024, 22:08:05
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <vadej5$1h1jn$2@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 8/24/2024 2:44 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 24.aug.2024 om 15:21 schreef olcott:
On 8/24/2024 3:47 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 23.aug.2024 om 23:40 schreef olcott:
On 8/23/2024 2:24 AM, joes wrote:
Am Thu, 22 Aug 2024 12:42:59 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>
Only IF it will in fact keep repeating, which is not the case.
>
Only IF it *WOULD* in fact keep repeating, *which is the case*
Only IF it *WOULD* in fact keep repeating, *which is the case*
Only IF it *WOULD* in fact keep repeating, *which is the case*
Only IF it *WOULD* in fact keep repeating, *which is the case*
>
It is the case only if you still cheat with the Root variable, which makes that HHH processes a non-input, when it is requested to predict the behaviour of the input.
>
<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>
>
The fact is that it *WOULD* in fact keep repeating,
thus *IT DOES* get the correct answer.
The fact is that it only happens because you make it so with cheating with the Root variable.
That THE DECISION IS CORRECT makes moot how the decision was made.
If HHH simply took a wild guess HHH would still be correct.
-- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Geniushits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
…