Re: V5 --- Professor Sipser

Am Wed, 21 Aug 2024 07:30:36 -0500 schrieb olcott:

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

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

>
Professor Sipser must have understood that an HHH(DDD)
that does abort is supposed predict what would happen if it never
aborted.

That is not a recursive simulation.

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>

*if D actually calls the H that aborts (=halts and returns)

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
(b) As measured by the correct partial simulation of D by H (c) When H
would never abort its simulation of F (d) This includes H simulating
itself simulating D

c is wrong. H does abort, and so does it when called by D.

Your words are so obviously crooked that only fool can be fooled.

--
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.