Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2024 13:57:41 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 78 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 20:57:41 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3e1a2626012d6c432c11247ed1bf0353"; logging-data="3642593"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19MMqkNZsDc8hn8EV4lqoUw" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:5jRkPQQZkA9RTMHdHUgu4e85nvE= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 5197 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. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer