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

On 8/22/24 9:06 AM, olcott wrote:

On 8/22/2024 3:21 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 21.Aug.2024 OM 20:52 olcott:

>
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).

 The would be stupid. If that was the case then HHH could ignore
its input and accept every input as halting including this one:
 void Infinite_Loop()
{
   HERE: goto HERE;
}
 

WHy? It is a simple fact that an unaborted simulation of that would not halt.
IT doesn't matter that HHH aborts its simulaiton, what matters is what the hypothetics non-aborting emulator does with that exact input, which must be a FULL program (and thus, if it calls an emulator, it calls the original).
Yes, this means that some problems are unsolvable, but then that *IS* the answer to the original question, is this problem unsolvable/uncomputable, which it turns out that it is.

 

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.

 That is stupid

No, YOU are stupid.
As you are clearly demonstrating, by calling the TRUTH stupid.

 

Are you still cheating with the Root variable to change the behaviour of HHH from an input to a non-input?