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

On 2024-08-21 12:30:36 +0000, olcott said:

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

From the meaning of "halt decider H" follows that the behaviour is
fully specified by the finite string D. The specified behaviour does
not change when the same finite string is given to another program
that interpretes it as a different behavour.

(b) As measured by the correct partial simulation of D by H
(c) When H would never abort its simulation of F
(d) This includes H simulating itself simulating D

The counterfactual assumption that H would never aboort does not
affect the behaviour specified by the input D. How H interpretes
that input is an implementation detail but in every calse the
answer H is required to give (in order to be a halt decider as
stated in the first cirterion) must be about the behavour dpecified
by the its input D.
--
Mikko