Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly
 met --- WDH
Date: Tue, 13 May 2025 16:30:20 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 101
Message-ID: <1000dlc$21dtc$5@dont-email.me>
References: <vvte01$14pca$29@dont-email.me>
 <fceb852a146ff7238c5be7a0adf420474a8fb5df@i2pn2.org>
 <vvuc7a$1deu5$5@dont-email.me>
 <c5a47349d8625838f1ee2782c216e0ebf9223bc6@i2pn2.org>
 <vvuj6l$1j6s0$3@dont-email.me>
 <b78af2e0b52f178683b672b45ba1bc2012023aaf@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 13 May 2025 23:30:21 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="43745e07502355f27fac5eed8a7d2487";
	logging-data="2144172"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18UnoUem+kYq1+h3TEKHv6d"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:liQxJX4pOlW4DI1in/UobF3rN9w=
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <b78af2e0b52f178683b672b45ba1bc2012023aaf@i2pn2.org>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250513-6, 5/13/2025), Outbound message
Bytes: 5082

On 5/13/2025 6:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/13/25 12:52 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/12/2025 11:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/12/25 10:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/12/2025 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/12/25 2:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> Introduction to the Theory of Computation 3rd Edition
>>>>>> by Michael Sipser (Author)
>>>>>> 4.4 out of 5 stars    568 rating
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation-Michael- 
>>>>>> Sipser/ dp/113318779X
>>>>>>
>>>>>> int DD()
>>>>>>   {
>>>>>>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>>>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>    return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>   }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> DD correctly simulated by any pure simulator
>>>>>> named HHH cannot possibly terminate thus proving
>>>>>> that this criteria has been met:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <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>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Which your H doesn't do, as it can not correctly determine what 
>>>>> doesn't happen.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Any C programmer can correctly tell what doesn't happen.
>>>> What doesn't happen is DD reaching its "return" statement
>>>> final halt state.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sure they can, since that is the truth, as explained.
>>>
>>> Since your "logic" is based on lies and equivocation, 
>>
>> If my logic was based on lies and equivocation
>> then you could provide actual reasoning that
>> corrects my errors.
> 
> I hae.
> 
>>
>> 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.

> Thus, a HHH that aborts to return an answer, when looking at the DDD 
> that calls it, must look at the unaborted emulation of THAT DDD, that 
> calls the HHH that DOES abort and return an answer, as that is what the 
> PROGRAM DDD is, If you can not create the HHH that does that without 
> changing that input, that is a flaw in your system, not the problem.
> 
>>
>> *simulated D would never stop running unless aborted*
>> or they themselves could become non-terminating.
> 
> 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

It is a hypothetical HHH/DD pair where everything
is exactly the same except that HHH has no abort
code.

Ben freaked out that professor Sipser agreed
to my use of the term *would* in
*simulated D would never stop running*
and said that he thought I tricked professor Sipser.

This is all still there in newsgroup servers
that don't keep deleting older messages.

-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer