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

On 8/29/2024 2:35 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-08-28 12:46:42 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 8/28/2024 7:34 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 28.aug.2024 om 14:07 schreef olcott:

On 8/28/2024 4:00 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 27.aug.2024 om 15:32 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
<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

>
*THIS IS YOUR REASONING*
If you are hungry and never eat you will remain hungry.
You are hungry and eat becoming no longer hungry.
*This proves that you never needed to eat*

>
No, apparently, your understanding of logic English is very poor.

>
HHH simulates DDD until it has inductive evidence that
in the purely hypothetical case where a different HHH
would never abort its emulation of DDD that DDD would
never terminate normally.
>
If we don't do it this way then infinite loops always halt.

 I would consider the infinite loops that always halt a more useful result.
 

A halt decider that always ignores its input and reports
halting is more useful? A decider such as mine would prevent
Denial Of Service (DOS) attacks. Permitting DOS attacks
is less useful.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer