Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Mike Terry Proves --- How the requirements that Professor Sipser
 agreed to are exactly met
Date: Tue, 20 May 2025 06:53:41 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <0a2782749b933272bc0779715fc572986f669bcb@i2pn2.org>
References: <1005jsk$3akrk$1@dont-email.me>
 <bc6f0f045212bdfb7f7d883426873a09e37789ea@i2pn2.org>
 <1005u6v$3cpt2$1@dont-email.me> <1006oi9$3l93f$1@dont-email.me>
 <1007kan$3qb7l$8@dont-email.me> <1009n2d$b9ol$1@dont-email.me>
 <100ag73$g1r8$1@dont-email.me> <100c83u$tspg$1@dont-email.me>
 <100ctuc$121rs$1@dont-email.me> <100d5b7$13m1e$1@dont-email.me>
 <221167c1bbedbbda1934b12f6b2c72de2c3a1f78@i2pn2.org>
 <100dckr$1586e$1@dont-email.me>
 <c5c825970bebea6bd8bfde7077f7ffc5ba0c30f5@i2pn2.org>
 <100dedr$15dil$3@dont-email.me>
 <771e0f3f36c9914146f675bc9e2c1c0e7903c116@i2pn2.org>
 <100dfc8$15qbo$1@dont-email.me>
 <35c9fb020e868823c3e46c006d9ac4698eaf4f82@i2pn2.org>
 <100dl6g$16vdn$1@dont-email.me>
 <f02a2fb26f6e1dedd29638f9b42befaab4781f17@i2pn2.org>
 <100dst7$18epo$1@dont-email.me> <100f18f$1iree$1@dont-email.me>
 <100gvv6$22oen$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 20 May 2025 11:06:44 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1155525"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <100gvv6$22oen$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 16079
Lines: 326

On 5/20/25 12:20 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/19/2025 5:30 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-05-19 00:10:15 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 5/18/2025 6:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/18/25 5:58 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/18/2025 3:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/18/25 4:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/18/2025 3:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/18/25 4:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/18/2025 2:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/18/25 3:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/18/2025 2:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/18/25 1:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/18/2025 10:21 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/05/2025 10:09, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-05-17 17:15:14 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/17/2025 5:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-05-16 15:07:03 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/16/2025 2:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-05-15 23:43:27 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/15/2025 6:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/15/25 4:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I overcome the proof of undecidability of the Halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Problem in that the code that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "does the opposite of whatever value that HHH 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returns"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> becomes unreachable to DD correctly simulated by HHH.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, only to youtr INCORRECTLY simuated by HHH.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words you believe that professor Sipser
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> screwed up when he agreed with these exact words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <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>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One may indeed thik so. Or pehaps he knew what he was 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing but cheated.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To sincerely agree with you without extreme care is 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an error.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2025 7:36 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > There is a natural (and correct) statement that Sipser
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > is far more likely (I'd say) to have agreed to.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is compatible with the idea that Sipser scewed up 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or cheated.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > First you should understand the basic idea behind a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > "Simulating Halt Decider" (*SHD*) that /partially/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > simulates its input, while observing each simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > step looking for certain halting/non-halting patterns
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > in the simulation. A simple (working) example here
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > is an input which goes into a tight loop.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Mike says much more about this)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Click here to get the whole article*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://al.howardknight.net/? 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3C1003cu5%242p3g1%241%40dont- 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> email.me%3E
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Message-ID: <1003cu5$2p3g1$1@dont-email.me>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There he explains an error in your claim to meet the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requirements that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Professor Sipser agreed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He also shows that your "In other words you believe 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that professor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sipser screwed up when he agreed with these exact 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words" is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported by evidence (but that is quite obvious anyway).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *That is fully addressed in my reply to Mike*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/17/2025 10:31 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are exactly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   met --- Mike my best reviewer]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Message-ID: <100aa5c$f19u$1@dont-email.me>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://al.howardknight.net/? 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3C100aa5c%24f19u%241%40dont-email.me%3E
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That page does not show all of the message.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You say there:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mike's reviews of my work are at least ten-fold better
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than the next best reviewer. Mike is one of the few
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people here that really wants an honest dialogue. He
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> carefully examined my code and has a nearly perfect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mike and I agree about everything essential in these 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I havn't noticed any disagreement is the less essential.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your statement "Mike is one of the few people here that 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really wants
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an honest dialogue" is far from true. Some peole may have 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a stronger
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> desire to keep the discussion honest but there are not 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many who have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any reason to want any dishonest discussion. Of course 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everyone's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ability to keep the discussion honest is restricted to 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ones own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You also say:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH(DDD) does not base its decision on the actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of DDD after it has aborted its simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of DDD, instead it bases its decision on a different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH/DDD pair that never aborts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is why HHH does not satisfy "H correctly determines 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated D would never stop running unless aborted". If 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH bases
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its decision on anything else than what its actual input 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifies it does not decide correctly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right.  It seems to be a recent innovation in PO's wording 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that he has started using the phrase "..bases its decision 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on a different *HHH/DDD pair* ..".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2025 7:36 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> we can easily interpret that as saying exactly what I said 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a SHD does above. It tells PO that in the tight loop 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> example, H correctly simulates as far as [A], at which 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> point it correctly determines that "its simulated input 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> would never stop running unless aborted", so it can decide 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "non-halting".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus SHD must report on a different SHD/Infinite_Loop pair
>>>>>>>>>>>>> where this hypothetical instance of itself never aborts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If H always reports on the behavior of its simulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>> input after it aborts then every input including
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========