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

On 8/25/2024 4:44 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 24.aug.2024 om 22:08 schreef olcott:

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.
>

>
Your dream is that it the decision is correct.

 The first part is a tautology. That you fail to understand
that it is a tautology is your failure of understanding and
not my mistake.

 On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
 > I don't think that is the shell game.  PO really /has/ an H
 > (it's trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines
 > that P(P) *would* never stop running *unless* aborted.
...
 > But H determines (correctly) that D would not halt if it
 > were not halted.  That much is a truism.
 

The fact is that the decision is incorrect. Dreams are no substitute for facts.
As usual an cheating and incorrect method leads to an incorrect result.
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.
>