Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH

Op 14.mei.2025 om 17:04 schreef olcott:

On 5/14/2025 9:26 AM, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 13 May 2025 16:52:14 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 5/13/2025 4:39 PM, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 13 May 2025 16:30:20 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 5/13/2025 6:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/13/25 12:52 AM, olcott wrote:

>

It is truism that simulating termination analyzers must report on
the behavior of their input as if they themselves never aborted this
simulation:

>
Right, of the input actually given to them, which must include all
their code, and that code is what is actually there, not created by
this imaginary operation.
>

In other words every single byte of HHH and DD are 100% totally
identical except the hypothetical HHH has its abort code commented
out.

...the simulating HHH, but not the simulatED one.
>

But you aren't simulating the same PROGRAM D that the original was
given.
>

It is not supposed to be the same program. *simulated D would never
stop running* refers to a different HHH/DD pair

Uh yes it is supposed to be the same actual input. The *simulator* is
hypothetical.
>

HHH is supposed to report on the behavior that *would* happen if this
HHH never aborted its input.

Right, if *this* simulator never aborted simulating *that* HHH that DDD
calls, which does abort. They are 100% completely different, except for
everything apart from the abort. HHH should report on what an UTM would
do with DDD calling the aborting HHH, namely halt.
>

 <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 correctly simulates its input D*
HHH simulates its input DDD according to the rules
of the x86 language

HHH makes only a start with a simulation of its input but violates the rules of the x86 language by halting when there is not a HLT instruction.

 *until H correctly determines*
This requires a partial simulation of non-terminating inputs.

No it incorrectly misses a part of te input that specifies an abort. That part of the input specifies that there is a halting program.
That the programmer made HHH blind for the specification does not mean that the specification is not there.

 *its simulated D would never stop running unless aborted*
DDD simulated by a hypothetical HHH that never aborts
*would never stop running*
 

And because it is aborted, this is a vacuous statement.
HHH should use its actual input, not a arbitrary hypothetical one.
sum(3,2) must use its actual input, not te hypothetical 4 and 5.
Face the facts, not your dreams. Come out of rebuttal mode. Try to think!