Re: Anyone that disagrees with this is not telling the truth --- V5 --- Professor Sipser

Op 22.aug.2024 om 14:59 schreef olcott:

On 8/22/2024 3:16 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 22.aug.2024 om 06:22 schreef olcott:

 <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>
 We swap the word "determines" for "predicts"
 When we swap thew word "halt decider" for
"termination analyzer" the above is translated
from computer science into software engineering.
 The second half proves that this is the H that aborts
that is making the prediction of the behavior of D when
emulated by a hypothetical version of itself then never
aborts.
 

>
THIS EXACTLY MATCHES THE SIPSER APPROVED CRITERIA
The finite HHH(DDD) emulates itself emulating DDD exactly once
and this is sufficient for this HHH to predict what a different
HHH(DDD) do that never aborted its emulation of its input.
>

>
But that different hypothetical HHH is a non-input.

 HHH is supposed to predict what the behavior of DDD would be
if it did not abort its emulation of DDD that is what the
words that Professor agreed to mean.

You are the only one to suppose that and you are twisting the words of Sipser.
In this case the requirement is that HHH predicts the behaviour of its input, *without modification of code or changing the values of the variables*. So, no-one except you would accept that the prediction would be about a modified program, because that is a non-input. Surely, professor Sipser would accept only the prediction for an unmodified input as correct. So, removal of the abort code and changing the value of the Root variable is simply incorrect.