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

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
(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

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

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer