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

On 8/25/24 3:36 PM, olcott wrote:

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)
 

Which is just a false comparison, as this is talking about transitory mutable entities with will, verse a deterministic program.
If a program needs to be aborted to halt, then it will ALWAYS need to be aborted to stop, and just because one simulation aborted doesn't change that fact.
Also, the input condidered needs to be the WHOLE input, and thus the specific DDD that we are talking about included the specific HHH that it calls.
Since that, by the problem definition, is the HHH that claims to give the correct answer, and the deterministic behavior of HHH, means that since that HHH aborts and returns, then DDD will halt, and thus the correct emulation of the input doesn't need to be abort, even though HHH does abort because it THINKS it needs to due to the faulty logic its programmer gave it.
That DDD calls the HHH that aborts. PERIOD.
And that makes that DDD Halt. PERIOD.
That means that HHH doesn't "need" to abort, but does, and thus is wrong. PERIOD.
Replacing the code of HHH with an HHH that doesn't abort, changes the program DDD, and thus none of the above apply, and what this does doesn't apply to that. PERIOD.
You trying to argue that it does, just proves that you are just ignorant of the rules of the system you are working in, stupid, and a pathological liar. PERIOD.
Sorry, those are the facts. Your arguments just prove those statements.
You just don't understand what you are talking about, proven by the fact that you have been unable to substantiate any of your claims with an actual scholorly source, because you just don't know of any, because you decided to intentionally work out of ignorance,  perhap because you knwo that to study the field would show you that your ideas couldn't be correct, and you prefer your ignorant acceptance of your false ideas to known the truth and that some of your ideas must be wrong.
Sorry, that is the facts. You have made your bed and it seems to put your reputation 6-feet under the ground.