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

Op 25.aug.2024 om 14:32 schreef olcott:

On 8/25/2024 2:53 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-08-24 19:49:42 +0000, Fred. Zwarts said:
>

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 ... correctly determines ...'.
There is no correct simulation, there is no correct determination, so the remainder of the sentence does not apply.
Maybe you should read it a few more times, until you understand what 'if' means.
Maybe use a dictionary to learn the meaning of English words.

>
For certain words like "if" and "would" a grammar book might be better.
>

 "IF" AKA within the following assumed premises:
   {HHH emulates N instructions of DDD according to the
    semantics of the x86 language}

But it skipped the last few instructions which would show that the input would abort and halt. Therefore it missed the fact that there was no infinite repetition.

 "UNTIL" (this condition is met)
{a preexisting correct non-halting behavior
  pattern has been matched by these N instructions}
 

And this did not happen. The non-halting pattern was not present, because HHH is coded to halt after a few cycles. So, the condition was incorrectly determined. Sipser would agree.
Since Sipser agreed only IF the simulation would be correct (which it isn't) UNTIL the condition would be met (which isn't), we can forget the remainder.
Sipser agreement does not *prove* that the simulation is correct, or that the condition is correct, but it *assumes* that the simulation is correct and that the condition is met.
Your task is now to prove that these assumptions are true. Only then Sipser's agreement makes any sense.