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
Date: Wed, 14 May 2025 20:36:19 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 126
Message-ID: <1003cu4$2p0vu$4@dont-email.me>
References: <vvte01$14pca$29@dont-email.me> <vvut31$1mfgr$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvviu7$1rc7v$3@dont-email.me>
 <7d1bfcbed36e6754f82e4f73117f30113b763e61@i2pn2.org>
 <1002do3$2i4bk$13@dont-email.me> <1002vmu$2mbr6$2@dont-email.me>
 <1003033$2mivc$2@dont-email.me> <10031jn$2mbr6$13@dont-email.me>
 <10033e7$2mtsb$5@dont-email.me> <10033p2$2mbr6$17@dont-email.me>
 <10035uj$2mtsb$12@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 15 May 2025 02:36:20 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6d1b86e29fda6298d6d1c334106b9947";
	logging-data="2917374"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19KQN5tHx95sso+sTEGZI2E"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:2iTejDhe99zZIlzwIJRsOJTiw6s=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <10035uj$2mtsb$12@dont-email.me>

On 5/14/2025 6:37 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/14/2025 5:00 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 5/14/2025 5:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/14/2025 4:23 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 5/14/2025 4:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/14/2025 3:50 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/14/2025 11:44 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/14/2025 6:22 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/13/25 9:54 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2025 2:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-05-12 18:17:37 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This specifies two requirements:
>>>>>>>>>> 1. H correctly simulates that part of the behaviour of D that 
>>>>>>>>>> starts
>>>>>>>>>> from the start of the execution and does not end before the 
>>>>>>>>>> second
>>>>>>>>>> requirement is satisfied.
>>>>>>>>>> 2. H correctly determines that unsimulated part of the 
>>>>>>>>>> behaviour is
>>>>>>>>>> infinitely long.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The second reuirement is not satisfied when HHH analyses the 
>>>>>>>>>> above
>>>>>>>>>> DD.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In other words you believe that DD will halt
>>>>>>>>> on its own without ever being aborted by HHH.
>>>>>>>>> That is counter-factual.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _DD()
>>>>>>>>> [00002133] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>>> [00002134] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>>> [00002136] 51         push ecx      ; make space for local
>>>>>>>>> [00002137] 6833210000 push 00002133 ; push DD
>>>>>>>>> [0000213c] e882f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DD)
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> HHH determines that DD correctly simulated by
>>>>>>>>> HHH keeps calling HHH(DD) until HHH aborts this
>>>>>>>>> simulation and rejects DD.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But that wasn't the criteria.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It was DD correctly simulated PERIOD.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> THERE IS NO PERIOD.
>>>>>>> THE SPEC REQUIRES A PARTIAL SIMULATION OF SOME INPUTS.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Simulation is not a requirement, 
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes it is a requirement of the above spec.
>>>>
>>>> That Sipser did not agree to:
>>>>
>>>
>>> I simply state the actual facts:
>>> *THESE WORDS ONLY HAVE ONE MEANING*
>>>
>>> <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>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> False:
>>
>>
>>       If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
>>       input D until H correctly determines that UTM(D)
>>       would never stop running unless aborted then
>>
>>
>> Which is what anyone familiar with the halting problem would think, as 
>> that is what is compatible with the requirements:
>>
> 
> Any stupid person that does not pay attention might think that.

No one but you would think it means anything else but what the 
requirements state:


Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of instructions) X 
described as <X> with input Y:

A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes the 
following mapping:

(<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly
(<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed directly