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

Op 27.aug.2024 om 15:32 schreef olcott:

On 8/27/2024 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-08-22 04:22:11 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 8/21/2024 10:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/21/24 11:26 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/21/2024 9:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/21/24 9:55 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/21/2024 8:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/21/24 9:23 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/21/2024 7:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/21/24 8:30 AM, olcott wrote:

On 8/21/2024 3:01 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-08-21 03:01:38 +0000, olcott said:

>
*We are only talking about one single point*
Professor Sipser must have understood that an HHH(DDD)
that does abort is supposed predict what would happen
if it never aborted.

>
Professor Sipser understood that what is not a part of the text
is not a part of the agreement. What H is required to predict
is fully determined by the words "halt decider H". The previous
word "simulating" refers to an implementation detail and does
not affect the requirements.
>

>
<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>
>
It is crucial to the requirements in that it specifies that
H is required to predict
(a) The behavior specified by the finite string D

>
Which must include *ALL* of the code of the PROGRAM D, which includes ALL the code of everything it calls, which includes H, so with your system, changing H gives a DIFFERENT input, which is not comparable in behavior to this input.
>

(b) As measured by the correct partial simulation of D by H

>
Nope, by H correctly predicting, with a partial simulation of D by H if possible, if the COMPLETE simulaiton by a "hypothetical H" replacing H but not changing the input, would never halt.
>

(c) When H would never abort its simulation of F

>
Which, since that isn't the case, put you into the realm of fantasy.
>

(d) This includes H simulating itself simulating D

>
Right, H must CORRECTLY predict the behavior of an UNABORTED emulation of its input, and if, and only if, it can determine that such an emulation would never halt, then it can abort its emulation.
>
Note, that is the emulation of this exact input, including D calling the ORIGINAL H, not changing to the Hypothetical, since by the rules of the field, the input is a fixed string, and fully defines the behavior of the input.
>

>
You are contradicting yourself.
Your ADD may prevent you from
concentrating well enough to see this.
>

>
I was right, you couldn't name it so you are just admiting that you are a liar trying to create an ad hominem attack that failed.
>

>
I have been over this same point again and again and again and
your "rebuttal" is changing the subject or calling me stupid.
>

>
What "change of subject", I just point out what the words you try to use actually mean, and why your claims are wrong by the rules of the system you claim to be working in.
>
The fact that you don't understand DOES make you stupid. I don't say you are wrong because you are stupid, you are wrong because the words you use don't mean what you think they do, and thus your conclusions are just incorrect.
>
That you seem to NEVER LEARN is what makes you stupid.
>

Professor Sipser clearly agreed that an H that does
a finite simulation of D is to predict the behavior
of an unlimited simulation of D.

>
Right, H needs to predict in a finite number of steps, what an unlimited simulation of this EXACT input, which means that it must call the H that you claim to be getting the right answer, which is the H that does abort and return non-halting.
>

>
OK then you seem to have this correctly, unless you interpret
this as a self-contradiction.
>

>
Why do you think it could be a self-contradiction?
>
It is an impossiblity for H to correctly due it, but that is why the Halting Problem is non-computable.
>

>
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.

>
That is relevant only if the input specifies that the behaviour
of that different HHH is a part of the behaviour of DDD.
>

 <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
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
 HHH is only required to correctly predict whether or not DDD
*would never stop running unless aborted*

And since DDD is calling an HHH that is programmed to detect the 'special condition', so that it aborts and halts, DDD halts as well and the simulated DDD would halt as well if not aborted (but keeping the aborting input) and there is no need to abort a halting function.
That it halts is proved by the direct execution and by the correct simulation by HHH1.
But HHH cannot possibly simulate *itself*, because when it aborts, it aborts one cycle too soon.
Therefore, its prediction is wrong.
The problem is not the simulation, but the algorithm to detects this 'special condition'. This algorithm is trying to detect non-halting behaviour. It that algorithm would be correct, then the problem would be solved. But the proven halting theorem tells us that no such algorithm exists.
Therefore, the discussion should not be about the simulation, but about this algorithm that detects the 'special condition'.
But it seems that olcott hides this algorithm, maybe, because he knows it is incorrect, and he tries to shift the discussion to whether the simulation is correct or not.