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 23:36:56 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 194
Message-ID: <100134n$24gr3$19@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> <10010eh$24gr3$16@dont-email.me>
 <10012fs$29e7u$6@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 05:36:56 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="aa4573950805358eaedd8b0785eca37f";
	logging-data="2245475"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18qO0xEtK1viD8mnzZOL4rn"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:qA0b3RwAtQWV5A5gt4PArRWzQBc=
In-Reply-To: <10012fs$29e7u$6@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US

On 5/13/2025 11:25 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/13/2025 9:50 PM, dbush wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> 
> That is not the subject of this post.
> We are ONLY discussing how HHH meets the spec.
> 

It doesn't matter whether or not HHH meets the spec if it has nothing to 
do with the halting problem, as you've admitted:


On 5/13/2025 9:54 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:
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========