Path: 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: Wed, 14 May 2025 10:04:21 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 55
Message-ID: <1002bdm$2i4bk$4@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>
 <56b6d1f535889a61c4b3ab9fbb49e40e921a461f@i2pn2.org>
 <1000eue$21dtc$7@dont-email.me>
 <1ef41beca220385304ac3499f8543dd65cc354fb@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 14 May 2025 17:04:22 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1b4c815c0318038d25de37dcdc1ad225";
	logging-data="2691444"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+i8AV2RpsdFmUVARpQygZ8"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:L18NaNMwBLV9yeqKCr0duPvGOiM=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <1ef41beca220385304ac3499f8543dd65cc354fb@i2pn2.org>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250514-2, 5/14/2025), Outbound message

On 5/14/2025 9:26 AM, joes wrote:
> Am Tue, 13 May 2025 16:52:14 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>> On 5/13/2025 4:39 PM, joes wrote:
>>> Am Tue, 13 May 2025 16:30:20 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>> On 5/13/2025 6:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/13/25 12:52 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>> ...the simulating HHH, but not the simulatED one.
>>>
>>>>> 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
>>> Uh yes it is supposed to be the same actual input. The *simulator* is
>>> hypothetical.
>>>
>> HHH is supposed to report on the behavior that *would* happen if this
>> HHH never aborted its input.
> Right, if *this* simulator never aborted simulating *that* HHH that DDD
> calls, which does abort. They are 100% completely different, except for
> everything apart from the abort. HHH should report on what an UTM would
> do with DDD calling the aborting HHH, namely halt.
> 

<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 correctly simulates its input D*
HHH simulates its input DDD according to the rules
of the x86 language

*until H correctly determines*
This requires a partial simulation of non-terminating inputs.

*its simulated D would never stop running unless aborted*
DDD simulated by a hypothetical HHH that never aborts
*would never stop running*

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