Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Mike Terry Proves --- How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met
Date: Sat, 17 May 2025 13:06:05 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 60
Message-ID: <1009n2d$b9ol$1@dont-email.me>
References: <1005jsk$3akrk$1@dont-email.me> <bc6f0f045212bdfb7f7d883426873a09e37789ea@i2pn2.org> <1005u6v$3cpt2$1@dont-email.me> <1006oi9$3l93f$1@dont-email.me> <1007kan$3qb7l$8@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 17 May 2025 12:06:06 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="fec6e91447213fbda2725682e460eb49";
	logging-data="370453"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+RubE3Syr/2YuIuktqwM0f"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:6+fk8UtyMCWDUS8K44uZIEPCx/g=

On 2025-05-16 15:07:03 +0000, olcott said:

> On 5/16/2025 2:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> 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.

That is compatible with the idea that Sipser scewed up or cheated.

>  > 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>

There he explains an error in your claim to meet the requirements that
Professor Sipser agreed.

He also shows that your "In other words you believe that professor
Sipser screwed up when he agreed with these exact words" is not
supported by evidence (but that is quite obvious anyway).

-- 
Mikko