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

On 8/22/2024 3:16 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 22.aug.2024 om 06:22 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
     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>
We swap the word "determines" for "predicts"
When we swap thew word "halt decider" for
"termination analyzer" the above is translated
from computer science into software engineering.
The second half proves that this is the H that aborts
that is making the prediction of the behavior of D when
emulated by a hypothetical version of itself then never
aborts.

>
THIS EXACTLY MATCHES THE SIPSER APPROVED CRITERIA
The finite HHH(DDD) emulates itself emulating DDD exactly once
and this is sufficient for this HHH to predict what a different
HHH(DDD) do that never aborted its emulation of its input.
>

 But that different hypothetical HHH is a non-input.

HHH is supposed to predict what the behavior of DDD would be
if it did not abort its emulation of DDD that is what the
words that Professor agreed to mean.

Do you still not understand that HHH should predict the behaviour of its input? Why does the HHH have an input, if it is correct to predict the behaviour of a non-input?
Are you still cheating with the Root variable to change the input in a non-input?

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