Re: V5 --- Professor Sipser

Am Thu, 22 Aug 2024 12:22:38 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 8/22/2024 11:59 AM, joes wrote:

Am Thu, 22 Aug 2024 08:36:33 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 8/22/2024 8:21 AM, joes wrote:

Am Thu, 22 Aug 2024 07:59:59 -0500 schrieb olcott:

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

Op 22.aug.2024 om 06:22 schreef olcott:

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>
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.

But still emulating a D that calls an aborting H.

What happens when your main(HHH(DDD)) is simulated by HHH?

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.

It is also not the simulator (since they are the same).

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.

If IT didn’t abort DDD calling its aborting self.

I don't know how you twist words to get that. HHH is required to
predict the behavior of DDD as if every HHH had its abort code
removed.

No; only if the same goes for the outermost one (but that doesn’t
halt).
Otherwise it is not simulating itself.

It <is> emulating the exact same code at the exact same machine address
exactly twice.

How do you justify the use of a static variable?

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?

--
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.