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

On 8/29/24 10:13 AM, olcott wrote:

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.
 

Which means that your Halt decider shouldn't ignore the input that they are ACTUALLY given, which include that they call THIS halt decider, and imagine they call something else.
YOu are just proving your own arguement is wrong.