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

Op 25.aug.2024 om 21:36 schreef olcott:

On 8/25/2024 12:22 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 25.aug.2024 om 14:24 schreef olcott:

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.

>
And if you are not hungry, there is no need to eat.
>

 *If you are hungry and eat THERE WAS A NEED TO EAT*
 NOT(If you are hungry and eat THERE WAS NEVER ANY NEED TO EAT)
 

When HHH is programmed to abort and halt when it thinks it sees an infinite recursion, the simulated HHH will do the same (unless you still cheat with the Root variable). And when the simulated HHH was allowed to reach the point that it thinks that it must abort and halt, it will return to DDD and DDD will halt. This is shown by the direct execution and by the correct simulation by HHH1. This proves that HHH aborts too early when it thinks that there is an infinite recursion.