Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly
 met --- Dishonest reviewers
Date: Sat, 17 May 2025 13:45:18 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 109
Message-ID: <100alfu$gba7$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vvte01$14pca$29@dont-email.me> <vvuj6l$1j6s0$3@dont-email.me>
 <b78af2e0b52f178683b672b45ba1bc2012023aaf@i2pn2.org>
 <1000dlc$21dtc$5@dont-email.me> <1000qdb$24gr3$4@dont-email.me>
 <1000rir$24jh0$3@dont-email.me> <1000rqc$24gr3$7@dont-email.me>
 <1000son$24sr2$3@dont-email.me>
 <7947826fb84c9c8db49c392b305d395c3669907f@i2pn2.org>
 <1002dre$2i4bk$14@dont-email.me> <1002vp2$2mbr6$3@dont-email.me>
 <10030c3$2mivc$3@dont-email.me> <87h61mang3.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <1003cu5$2p3g1$1@dont-email.me> <1003dir$2p2so$2@dont-email.me>
 <1004h1m$331gh$4@dont-email.me> <1006igb$3joc3$1@dont-email.me>
 <10085ru$3tr3u$3@dont-email.me> <100876u$3tu2i$1@dont-email.me>
 <63cd387226816d18c922f5b67911ab13ce3ad071@i2pn2.org>
 <1008er1$3vlcm$3@dont-email.me>
 <f0b832e4a3c11e84bbd8f597d420a77b6bae5a6f@i2pn2.org>
 <1008mem$150b$1@dont-email.me>
 <74025a25d23cae7e6590f32656d7423dd3c4f956@i2pn2.org>
 <1008ukb$66kl$3@dont-email.me> <1009jd5$ahg3$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 17 May 2025 20:45:19 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6ea8251727358be87ec7627194d1f4d0";
	logging-data="535879"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+DJkQFxXru4ZZvhYINO7JU"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:eNwf+cgCOl4xXBkyFJEErV7Gl8w=
In-Reply-To: <1009jd5$ahg3$1@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250517-6, 5/17/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US

On 5/17/2025 4:03 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 17.mei.2025 om 05:08 schreef olcott:
>> On 5/16/2025 9:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/16/25 8:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/16/2025 7:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/16/25 6:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/16/2025 5:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/16/25 4:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/16/2025 3:06 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Op 16.mei.2025 om 07:29 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>> *Not at all. I am following 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>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2025 7:36 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Shows exactly how to implement those words to implement
>>>>>>>>>> a correct Simulating Termination Analyzer. Mike provides
>>>>>>>>>> a complete example of how this works.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sipser agreed to a vacuous statement, because the condition 
>>>>>>>>> 'correctly simulates' was not met.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And by this you mean that when the spec requires
>>>>>>>> a partial simulation
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *until H correctly determines that its simulated D*
>>>>>>>> *would never stop running unless aborted*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You "interpret" this to mean that it must
>>>>>>>> infinitely simulate non-terminating inputs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which means, as I explained else, if H, after doing a partial 
>>>>>>> simulation, can determine that a COMPLETE simulation of this 
>>>>>>> exact input would be non-halting, it can abort.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not quite. One key detail is missing.
>>>>>> *H correctly determines that its simulated D*
>>>>>> *would never stop running unless aborted*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is referring to what the behavior of D would be
>>>>>> (in the hypothetical case) where this very same
>>>>>> H never aborted.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, since D must stay D, and D must be a fully encoded program 
>>>>> and thus doesn't change when you make the hypothetical H.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Click here to get the whole article*
>>>> https://al.howardknight.net/? 
>>>> STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3C1003cu5%242p3g1%241%40dont-email.me%3E
>>>>
>>>> Mike perfectly explains all of this with a concrete
>>>> example. In this case H determines that its infinite
>>>> loop input would never stop running unless aborted
>>>> so it aborts it and correctly rejects it.
>>>>
>>>> H is not being asked what is the behavior of this
>>>> infinite loop after H aborts it. It is being asked
>>>> what its behavior would be if H never aborted it.
>>>>
>>>> HHH is not being asked what is the behavior of
>>>> DDD after HHH aborts it. It is being asked
>>>> what its behavior would be if HHH never aborted it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> What makes you think I haven't.
>>>
>>
>> You haven't what?
>>
>>> And, since DDD needs to be a PROGRAM to do any of this, as non-leaf 
>>> functions can't be correctly emulated, that DDD DOES include the code 
>>> of the HHH it was built for, which is the HHH that aborts and returns 0.
>>>
>>
>> It is the job of HHH to determine whether or not its
>> input *WOULD NEVER STOP RUNNING UNLESS ABORTED*
> 
> No, it is the task of HHH to determine whether *this* input, that 
> includes Halt7.c and which does specify a conditional abort, halts.

I am only asking DOES HHH meet the above spec?
You keep changing the subject away from this.

*This is an axiom of the above spec*
*WOULD NEVER STOP RUNNING UNLESS ABORTED*

When you disagree you change the subject
away from: DOES HHH meet the above spec?

Changing the subject is a favorite tactic
of my dishonest reviewers.

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