Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly
 met
Date: Thu, 15 May 2025 12:41:57 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 86
Message-ID: <1004gdl$331gh$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vvte01$14pca$29@dont-email.me> <10013fp$2a1j4$2@dont-email.me>
 <0754c526b05716e5e562dba291033f9be50e7109@i2pn2.org>
 <1002dbi$2i4bk$11@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 12:41:58 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f01669ad5be46e37f414bf63360950cd";
	logging-data="3245585"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+WB6JDj3HpTsMx9cG8qfFL"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:B5lv3ZBb1A6ZAQSg4qMbk61XGsI=
In-Reply-To: <1002dbi$2i4bk$11@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: nl, en-GB

Op 14.mei.2025 om 17:37 schreef olcott:
> On 5/14/2025 6:27 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/13/25 11:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/12/2025 1:17 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>
>>>>
>>>
>>> People tried for more than a year to get away with saying
>>> that DDD was not emulated by HHH correctly until I stipulated
>>> that DDD is emulated by HHH according to the rules of the
>>> x86 language. Then they shut up about this.
>>>
>>> People tried to get away with saying that HHH
>>> cannot not decide halting on the basis of
>>> *simulated D would never stop running unless aborted*
>>> until I pointed out that those exact words are in the spec.
>>>
>>> People tried to get away with saying that the correct
>>> emulation of a non-halting input cannot be partial
>>> Yet partial simulation is right in the spec:
>>> *H correctly simulates its input D until*
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Right, "Correct Simulations" can never be partial.
>>
>> Partial Simulations can be partial.
>>
>> Deciders can use Partial Simulations, if they do it correctly.
>>
>> But to do so, they need to show that the ACTUAL CORRECT SIMULATION of 
>> this EXACT input, which needs to represent a PROGRAM, would never halt.
>>
> 
> *That is not what these words say*
> <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
> 
> *its simulated D would never stop running unless aborted*

And since the abort is there, HHH will return and DDD will stop.

> 
> void DDD()
> {
>    HHH(DDD);
>    return;
> }
> 
> You already admitted the simulated input to HHH(DDD)
> *would never stop running unless aborted*
> 
And since the abort is there, the HHH wil stop, return to DDD and DDD 
will stop as well.
Correct simulations see that, for example HHH and other world-class 
simulators.
Come out of your rebuttal mode. Face the facts instead of your dreams.