Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
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 10:17:01 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 72
Message-ID: <1007ktd$3qb7l$11@dont-email.me>
References: <1005jsk$3akrk$1@dont-email.me>
 <bc6f0f045212bdfb7f7d883426873a09e37789ea@i2pn2.org>
 <1005u6v$3cpt2$1@dont-email.me>
 <28e3bf7570b704d952e814b5e8a50bb11cbb1246@i2pn2.org>
 <100676j$3dmiv$3@dont-email.me>
 <16a3b842e76f2aadf811291c75dbc9389d397257@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 16 May 2025 17:17:02 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a793c50ac46b1404361ae4f1062ef558";
	logging-data="4009205"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19STjW++oK3MlikA0oNTU2m"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:FQuTkXd6VJyZK95+97kdjpxAt7s=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <16a3b842e76f2aadf811291c75dbc9389d397257@i2pn2.org>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250516-4, 5/16/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US

On 5/16/2025 8:46 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/15/25 10:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/15/2025 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/15/25 7:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> No, you just don't know the meaning of them.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> <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>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Remember, he works in Computation Theory, and thus talks about 
>>> PROGRAMS, these BY DEFINITION include all of their algrorithm/code as 
>>> part of themselves.
>>>
>>> You have admitted/stipuated that YOUR "DD" and "DDD" are NOT program, 
>>> but just (non-leaf) "C functions", and thus his statement just 
>>> doesn't apply to your system.
>>>
>>> Also, "its simulated D would never stop runnign unless aborted" means 
>>> exactly that, The D that H was given 
>>
>> cannot possibly ever stop running unless aborted by H
> 
> "Aborted by H" wasn't in the quote.
> 

Mike explains all of the details of how the
above quote does derive a correct Simulating Halt Decider.

On 5/14/2025 7:36 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
 > There is a natural (and correct) statement that Sipser
 > is far more likely (I'd say) to have agreed to.
 >
 > First you should understand the basic idea behind a
 > "Simulating Halt Decider" (*SHD*) that /partially/
 > simulates its input, while observing each simulation
 > step looking for certain halting/non-halting patterns
 > in the simulation. A simple (working) example here
 > is an input which goes into a tight loop.
(Mike says much more about this)

*Click here to get the whole article*
https://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3C1003cu5%242p3g1%241%40dont-email.me%3E 


Message-ID: <1003cu5$2p3g1$1@dont-email.me>

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