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: dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly
 met --- WDH
Date: Wed, 14 May 2025 16:51:48 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 148
Message-ID: <1002vp2$2mbr6$3@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>
 <7947826fb84c9c8db49c392b305d395c3669907f@i2pn2.org>
 <1002dre$2i4bk$14@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 22:51:47 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="794812149fd3df87a1483ec84874242e";
	logging-data="2830182"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/YtFsQ0b+lSsQ5o1RsADCO"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:j7Qzs8Hd+ILFXLYuwgU+QdFG5cQ=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <1002dre$2i4bk$14@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 7316

On 5/14/2025 11:45 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/14/2025 6:20 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/13/25 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.
>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>
>>
>> And since the DD that HHH is simulating WILL HALT when fully simulated 
>> (an action that HHH doesn't do) 
> 
> *NOT IN THE ACTUAL SPEC*
> <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
> 

That Sipser didn't agree what you think the above means:

On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 2:41:27 PM UTC-5, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
 > I exchanged emails with him about this. He does not agree with anything
 > substantive that PO has written. I won't quote him, as I don't have
 > permission, but he was, let's say... forthright, in his reply to me.