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

On 8/25/24 8:24 AM, olcott wrote:

On 8/25/2024 2:51 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-08-24 20:08:05 +0000, olcott said:
>

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.

>
To say "no" about a halting program means that what said "no"
is not a halt decider.
>

 <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
 No matter how you try to twist those words HHH/DDD do meet that criteria.
 (a) When you are hungry you will remain hungry until you eat.
(b) When DDD emulated by HHH is non-halting it will keep running until aborted.
 

But the HHH that you are talking about CAN'T keep simulating without aborting, as its code it fixed to abort at the point it does.
Your logic is just based on the *LIE* that you can change something that is part of the input and still be looking at the same thing,
Just like your (a) is a catergory error to claim it is at all similar.
You are just proving how ignorant you are of what you talk about, it seems you just don't understand what a "program" is.