Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Overcoming the proof of undecidability of the Halting Problem by a simple example in C
Date: Fri, 16 May 2025 10:13:13 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <1006oi9$3l93f$1@dont-email.me>
References: <1005jsk$3akrk$1@dont-email.me> <bc6f0f045212bdfb7f7d883426873a09e37789ea@i2pn2.org> <1005u6v$3cpt2$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 16 May 2025 09:13:13 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1dfa167546830b8917680f44790d20f0";
	logging-data="3843183"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+SEkXAltAuawfloVgxa6CV"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:0OFHHrrAf3YAG8VyKZNcF30UeT0=

On 2025-05-15 23:43:27 +0000, olcott said:

> On 5/15/2025 6:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/15/25 4:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> I overcome the proof of undecidability of the Halting
>>> Problem in that the code that
>>> "does the opposite of whatever value that HHH returns"
>>> becomes unreachable to DD correctly simulated by HHH.
>> 
>> Nope, only to youtr INCORRECTLY simuated by HHH.
>> 
> 
> In other words you believe that professor Sipser
> screwed up when he agreed with these exact words.
> 
> <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>

One may indeed thik so. Or pehaps he knew what he was doing but cheated.
To sincerely agree with you without extreme care is an error.

-- 
Mikko