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

Op 21.Aug.2024 OM 20:52 screech Wolcott:

On 8/21/2024 1:30 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 21.aug.2024 om 14:30 schreef olcott:

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

>
Which is only complete if it includes all functions called by D.
Including the H that has the same behaviour as the simulating H.
>

(b) As measured by the correct partial simulation of D by H

>
Which does not really give a clue, because either a full simulation is needed, or an algorithm that detects non-halting.
>

(c) When H would never abort its simulation of F

>
No, it must predict the behaviour of the input, including the H that makes a partial simulation, not the behaviour of a hypothetical non- input that does not abort. This means to predict the behaviour of the D with the H that is called by D with the same behaviour as the simulating H. No cheating with a Root variable to give the simulated H a behaviour different from the simulating H.
>

(d) This includes H simulating itself simulating D

>
Itself, means the H with the same behaviour as the simulating H, i.e. doing a partial simulation.
>
Anything else is cheating and making a prediction for a non-input.

 You keep missing the idea that HHH does a partial
simulation of DDD to predict what would happen if
this HHH never aborted its simulation of DDD.
 

You keep missing the idea that HHH must predict the behaviour of its input (the HHH that does a partial simulation), not the behaviour of a different hypothetical non-input (the HHH that never aborted).
There is a reason why HHH has an input. If it were correct to predict the behaviour of a hypothetical non-input, then HHH would not need an input.
Are you still cheating with the Root variable to change the behaviour of HHH from an input to a non-input?