Re: V5 --- Professor Sipser --- Execution trace of simulating termination analyzer HHH on DDD input

On 8/24/24 4:08 PM, olcott wrote:

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.
 

But it isn't correct, remembr, DDD is a full program (or your a liar) and includes in its behavior ALL the code that it has, and that code inlcudes the HHH that does abort and return, thus when HHH hypothosizes about an HHH that doesn't abort, that HHH is given that exact same DDD, that calls the HHH that does abort and return, and thus that Hypothetical HHH will reach the final instruction and thus HHH is not correct that its Hypothetical HHH will never halt.
Only by "Cheating" and IMPROPERLY changing the input, does HHH reach that conclusion.
It seems you logic is based on the principle that lies are ok, which makes it not have an actual definition of truth.
Sorry, you just seems to have a psychological problem with understand what truth is, making you a pathological liar.