Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On Tue, 20 May 2025 19:51:59 +0200, Fred. Zwarts wrote:It usually isn't. There are many variants of the problem but if you
Op 20.mei.2025 om 16:22 schreef olcott:The halting problem is defined in terms of UTMs with infinite tape soOn 5/20/2025 2:00 AM, Mikko wrote:We use the same criteria. We see that there is no correct simulation andOn 2025-05-20 04:10:54 +0000, olcott said:I wish that people would pay attention.
On 5/19/2025 5:12 AM, Mikko wrote:Every decider is required to report. But your (c) above prevents theOn 2025-05-18 19:18:21 +0000, olcott said:HHH is required to report, that is why it must always report on the
On 5/18/2025 2:08 PM, joes wrote:You forgot (e) H does not reportAm Sun, 18 May 2025 12:28:05 -0500 schrieb olcott:H is required to report on the behavior of D in the case where aOn 5/18/2025 10:21 AM, Mike Terry wrote:On 18/05/2025 10:09, Mikko wrote:On 2025-05-17 17:15:14 +0000, olcott said:This, the simulator. The input still calls the same real abortingThus SHD must report on a different SHD/Infinite_Loop pair whereRight. It seems to be a recent innovation in PO's wording thatHHH(DDD) does not base its decision on the actual behavior ofThis is why HHH does not satisfy "H correctly determines that
DDD after it has aborted its simulation of DDD, instead it
bases its decision on a different HHH/DDD pair that never
aborts.
its simulated D would never stop running unless aborted". If
HHH bases its decision on anything else than what its actual
input actually specifies it does not decide correctly.
he has started using the phrase "..bases its decision on a
different *HHH/DDD pair* ..".
this hypothetical instance of itself never aborts.
HHH.
If H always reports on the behavior of its simulated input afterYes, that is why H is wrong.
it aborts then every input including infinite_loop would be
determined to be halting.
Instead H must report on the hypothetical H/D input pair whereJust no.
the very same H has been made to not abort its input.
*H correctly determines that its simulated D*H does stop running when simulated without aborting, because it
*would never stop running unless aborted*
by a hypothetical instance of itself that never aborts.
aborts.
hypothetical instance of itself never aborts its simulated D.
When the hypothetical H never aborts its simulated D then:
(a) Simulated D NEVER HALTS (b) Executed D() NEVER HALTS (c)
Executed H() NEVER HALTS (d) Everything that H calls NEVER HALTS
behavior of the hypothetical H/D pair and not the actual behavior of
the actual H/D pair for every non-terminating input.
hypothetical H from reporting. Therefore the hypothetical H is not a
decider.
People only glance at a couple of words that I say then artificially
contrive a fake rebuttal.
*We are ONLY measuring HHH/DDD against this criteria*
<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
that H does not correctly determine that its simulated D would never
stop running. In fact the input specified to H contains code to abort,
so a simulation of this input without abort would lead to a natural
halt.
So, because the criteria are not met, we see that Sipser agreed to a
vacuous statement.
But you do not pay attention to what is said, because you stay in
rebuttal mode and, after seeing just a few words, keep repeating
statements that are proven to be irrelevant, without even touching the
fact that you are proven to be irrelevant.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.