Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Fred. Zwarts" Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2024 21:01:09 +0200 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 80 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2024 21:01:11 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7b2dfb52a2545f32ded9b03629a80d37"; logging-data="3642419"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX184Iv4QqtPEySQofAN5Vn+J" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:EbvE+B9a9wxDvo/n1Vj7VfFRORQ= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-GB Bytes: 5239 Op 02.jun.2024 om 20:57 schreef olcott: > On 6/2/2024 1:51 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >> Op 02.jun.2024 om 20:37 schreef olcott: >>> On 6/2/2024 1:16 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>> Op 02.jun.2024 om 16:58 schreef olcott: >>>>> On 6/2/2024 4:36 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>> Am Sat, 01 Jun 2024 17:37:28 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 6/1/2024 5:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/1/24 5:27 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/1/2024 4:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/24 4:35 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/2024 3:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/24 12:46 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/2024 11:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/24 12:18 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/2024 11:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/24 11:58 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/2024 10:46 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/24 10:00 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Every DD correctly simulated by any HH of the infinite set of >>>>>>>>> HH/DD >>>>>>>>> pairs that match the above template never reaches past its own >>>>>>>>> simulated line 03 in 1 to ∞ steps of correct simulation of DD >>>>>>>>> by HH. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But since the simulation was aborted, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *The above never mentions anything about any simulation being >>>>>>> aborted* >>>>>> Not simulating an infinite number of steps of infinite recursion is >>>>>> incorrect. You always forget this requirement: the simulation must be >>>>>> complete. >>>>> >>>>> When every possible simulation where DD is correctly simulated by HH >>>>> never reaches past its own simulated line 03 then we know for sure >>>>> that >>>>> No DD correctly simulated by HH ever halts. >>>> >>>> Similarly: >>>> >>>> When every possible simulation where HH is correctly simulated by >>>> itself >>>> never reaches its own return then we know for sure that no HH >>>> correctly simulated by HH ever halts. >>>> >>> >>> *I am not going to keep repeating myself, I will simply give up on you* >>> >>> HH(DD,DD) correctly detects that DD correctly simulated by HH cannot >>> possibly halt because HH keeps calling HH(DD,DD) in recursive >>> simulation. >> >> Similarly HH(DD,DD) correctly detects that HH correctly simulated by >> HH cannot possibly halt, because HH keeps calling HH(DD,DD) in recursive >> simulation. >> > > HH(DD,DD) correctly simulates DD(DD) that calls HH(DD,DD) in recursive > simulation proving that the directly executed HH(DD,DD) can correctly > reject its input as non-halting. > > MIT Professor Michael Sipser agreed this verbatim paragraph is correct > (He has neither reviewed nor agreed to anything else in this paper) > > > 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. > > > The above criteria provides the basis for a correct solution to the > halting problem. > If so, it proves that HH correctly reports that HH does not halt.