Re: V5 --- Professor Sipser

Am Wed, 21 Aug 2024 20:55:52 -0500 schrieb olcott:

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:

(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.

What’s the contradiction?

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.

On the contrary, we are talking in circles.

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.

If the simulator *itself* would not abort. The H called by D is,
by construction, the same and *does* abort.

Ben saw this right away and it seems that most everyone else simply lied
about it.

I don’t think you understood him.

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.

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.

Nice.
--
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.