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

On 8/21/2024 8:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/21/24 9:23 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/21/2024 7:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/21/24 8:30 AM, olcott wrote:

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 must include *ALL* of the code of the PROGRAM D, which includes ALL the code of everything it calls, which includes H, so with your system, changing H gives a DIFFERENT input, which is not comparable in behavior to this input.
>

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

>
Nope, by H correctly predicting, with a partial simulation of D by H if possible, if the COMPLETE simulaiton by a "hypothetical H" replacing H but not changing the input, would never halt.
>

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

>
Which, since that isn't the case, put you into the realm of fantasy.
>

(d) This includes H simulating itself simulating D

>
Right, H must CORRECTLY predict the behavior of an UNABORTED emulation of its input, and if, and only if, it can determine that such an emulation would never halt, then it can abort its emulation.
>
Note, that is the emulation of this exact input, including D calling the ORIGINAL H, not changing to the Hypothetical, since by the rules of the field, the input is a fixed string, and fully defines the behavior of the input.
>

>
You are contradicting yourself.
Your ADD may prevent you from
concentrating well enough to see this.
>

 I was right, you couldn't name it so you are just admiting that you are a liar trying to create an ad hominem attack that failed.
 

I have been over this same point again and again and again and
your "rebuttal" is changing the subject or calling me stupid.
Professor Sipser clearly agreed that an H that does
a finite simulation of D is to predict the behavior
of an unlimited simulation of D.
Ben saw this right away and it seems that most everyone
else simply lied about it.

Your problem is you don't know what the words mean, and when someone uses something that confuses you because you don't understand the words, rathrer than try to find out what it is you don't understand, you try to put the other person down.
 Sorry, that just proves you are a stupid idiot that doesn't know what you are talking about.
 That means your chance of actually doing what you claim you want to do is about that of a snowflake in Hell, which you just might get the chance to see if it can happen.

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