Re: V5 --- Professor Sipser --- trace of HHH on DDD input

Op 24.aug.2024 om 22:04 schreef olcott:

On 8/24/2024 2:49 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 24.aug.2024 om 16:35 schreef olcott:

On 8/24/2024 9:27 AM, joes wrote:

Am Sat, 24 Aug 2024 08:21:45 -0500 schrieb 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*

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.

The fact is that it *WOULD* in fact keep repeating,
thus *IT DOES* get the correct answer.

>

The simulated, aborting HHH would… abort.

>
<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
>

Why repeating this over and over again if you do not understand the words?
Sipser agreed to 'If ... correctly simulates ...

 Meaning: Emulates the input finite string according
to the semantics of the x86 language.
 I have corrected you too many times on this to believe
that you are honest.

Why don't you listen to corrections? The simulation violates the semantics of the x86 language by skipping the last cycle of the simulated halting program.
It further violates the semantics of the x86 language by changing the value of the cheating Root variable when there is no instruction to do so in the simulation.
Repeat this a few times until you understand it: violates the semantics of the x86 language by arbitrarily changing values of variables and by skipping the last cycle of the simulated halting program.

 

correctly determines ...'.

 If DDD WOULD never stop running when emulated by
a hypothetical HHH that never aborts then this is

Another thing to repeat: HHH must process its input, not a hypothetical non-input.
Is that so difficult to understand?
The input to be simulated is the HHH that must behave exactly as the simulating HHH: abort and halt.
No cheating with a Root variable to justify that incorrect results are correct.
No matter how much olcott wants it to be correct, or how many times olcott repeats that it is correct, it does not change the fact that such a simulation is incorrect, because it is unable to reach the end of a halting program.
Olcott's own claim that the simulated HHH does not reach its end confirms it. The trace he has shown also proves that HHH cannot reach the end of its own simulation. So, his own claims prove that it is true that HHH cannot possibly simulate itself up to the end, which makes the simulation incomplete and, therefore, incorrect.
Dreams are no substitute for logic proofs.