Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly
 met --- WDH
Date: Tue, 13 May 2025 22:50:58 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 152
Message-ID: <10010eh$24gr3$16@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>
 <1000dlc$21dtc$5@dont-email.me> <1000qdb$24gr3$4@dont-email.me>
 <1000rir$24jh0$3@dont-email.me> <1000rqc$24gr3$7@dont-email.me>
 <1000son$24sr2$3@dont-email.me> <1000t4d$24gr3$10@dont-email.me>
 <1000tap$24sr2$6@dont-email.me> <1000te4$24gr3$13@dont-email.me>
 <1001076$29e7u$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 14 May 2025 04:50:57 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="aa4573950805358eaedd8b0785eca37f";
	logging-data="2245475"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/XZyGm3SujJUTAdCXGgw1Y"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:5E4wmqqTfnMlHKKrSmh9oEOx5Uc=
In-Reply-To: <1001076$29e7u$3@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US

On 5/13/2025 10:47 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/13/2025 8:59 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 5/13/2025 9:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/13/2025 8:54 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 5/13/2025 9:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/13/2025 8:31 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/13/2025 9:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/13/2025 8:07 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2025 5:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In other words you changed the input.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Changing the input is not allowed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So you *explicitly* admit to changing the input.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The finite string of DD is specific sequence bytes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which includes the specific sequence of bytes that is the finite 
>>>>>> string HHH
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No it does not. A function calls is not macro inclusion.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then you admit that your HHH not deciding about algorithms and 
>>>> therefore has nothing to do with the halting problem.
>>>>
>>>>>>> The finite string of HHH is specific sequence bytes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The hypothetical HHH that does not abort its input
>>>>>>> cannot have input that has changed because it never
>>>>>>> comes into actual existence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But your HHH decides on that hypothetical non-input.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The whole point here is not to critique the words
>>>>> that professor Sipser agreed to.
>>>>>
>>>>> The whole point here is to determine whether or
>>>>> not HHH meets this spec. It is a verified fact
>>>>> that it does meet this spec.
>>>>
>>>> But since you just admitted that your HHH is not deciding on 
>>>> algorithms, 
>>>
>>> That is a dishonest change of subject.
>>> That HHH is doing eactly what the spec requires
>>> is the whole purpose of this post.
>>>
>>
>> And since that spec is not working on algorithms,
> 
> The spec does not mention algorithms 

Meaning what you're doing has nothing to do with the halting problem.

If you're just honest about that fact people will stop bothering you.