Sujet : Re: V5 --- Professor Sipser
De : mikko.levanto (at) *nospam* iki.fi (Mikko)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 23. Aug 2024, 09:09:46
Autres entêtes
Organisation : -
Message-ID : <va9g4a$rgln$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
User-Agent : Unison/2.2
On 2024-08-22 18:01:47 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/22/2024 12:30 PM, joes wrote:
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.
He agreed to my own words that I spent two years carefully crafting.
I know what my own words mean.
He agreed with the words. He did not agree with your non-standard meanings
for those words.
It seems that you no longer remember what those words meant to you
when you wrote them first time. In the resent messages you are twisting
the worods differently from last year or earlier.
-- Mikko
…