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 --- Mike my best reviewer
Date: Sat, 17 May 2025 15:05:36 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 145
Message-ID: <100aq6g$i785$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vvte01$14pca$29@dont-email.me>
 <fceb852a146ff7238c5be7a0adf420474a8fb5df@i2pn2.org>
 <vvuc7a$1deu5$5@dont-email.me>
 <c5a47349d8625838f1ee2782c216e0ebf9223bc6@i2pn2.org>
 <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> <10070cl$3mmus$1@dont-email.me>
 <1007j6b$3qb7l$2@dont-email.me> <1009iu4$agi7$1@dont-email.me>
 <100a6d9$e80n$1@dont-email.me> <100aa5c$f19u$1@dont-email.me>
 <6b21dc04df76f0c91517919081b83705a3aeb359@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 17 May 2025 22:05:37 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6ea8251727358be87ec7627194d1f4d0";
	logging-data="597253"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+FbT4Wydwf1UbaFI8UoBBo"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:0sptRDxFSTn1mA9mGVYrjZnEzOU=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <6b21dc04df76f0c91517919081b83705a3aeb359@i2pn2.org>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250517-6, 5/17/2025), Outbound message

On 5/17/2025 2:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/17/25 11:31 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/17/2025 9:27 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>> On 17/05/2025 09:55, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2025-05-16 14:47:39 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/16/2025 4:26 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-05-15 00:36:21 +0000, Mike Terry said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 14/05/2025 22:31, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>>>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2025 3:51 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2025 11:45 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2025 6:20 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And since the DD that HHH is simulating WILL HALT when fully
>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated (an action that HHH doesn't do)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *NOT IN THE ACTUAL SPEC*
>>>>>>>>>>> <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
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That Sipser didn't agree what you think the above means:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If that was actually true then you could provide an
>>>>>>>>> alternative meaning for the exact words stated above.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I keep challenging you to provide this alternative
>>>>>>>>> meaning and you dodge because you know that you are
>>>>>>>>> lying about there being any alternative meaning
>>>>>>>>> FOR THE EXACT WORDS LISTED ABOVE.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No alternative meaning is needed, just a correct interpretation 
>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>> words (which appear to be incomplete).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The quoted sentence is cut off, something that I suspect you didn't
>>>>>>>> notice.  Here's the full quotation from a previous article:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <Sipser approved abstract>
>>>>>>>>>> MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that the following 
>>>>>>>>>> verbatim
>>>>>>>>>> paragraph is correct (he has not agreed to anything else in this
>>>>>>>>>> paper):
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>> </Sipser approved abstract>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> **If** H correctly simulates its input in the manner you claim,
>>>>>>>> **then** H can correctly report the halting status of D.  (That's a
>>>>>>>> paraphrase that probably doesn't capture the full meaning; the full
>>>>>>>> **quotation is above.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To put it another way, If H correctly simulated its input in
>>>>>>>> the manner you claim, then H could correctly report the halting
>>>>>>>> status of D.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not surprised that Sipser would agree to that.  The problem is
>>>>>>>> that it's a conditional statement whose premise is impossible.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If an equilateral triangle had four sides, then each of its four
>>>>>>>> vertices would be 90 degrees.  That doesn't actually mean that
>>>>>>>> there exists an equilateral triangle with four 90-degree vertices,
>>>>>>>> and in fact no such triangle exists.  Similarly, *if* a general
>>>>>>>> halt decider existed, then there are a lot of things we could say
>>>>>>>> about it -- but no general halt decider can exist.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not quite 100% confident in my reasoning here.  I invite any
>>>>>>>> actual experts in computational theory (not you, PO) to criticize
>>>>>>>> what I've written.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I doubt that Sipser would be using your interpretation, relying 
>>>>>>> on a false premise as a clever kind of logical loop-hole to 
>>>>>>> basically fob someone off.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The details of H are not known to Sipser, so he can't know whether a
>>>>>> premise is false. It is possible that some simulating partial decider
>>>>>> correctly simulates a part of the behaviour of some D and correctly
>>>>>> determines that the unsimulated part of the behaviour never halts;
>>>>>> for example, if the unsimulated part is a trivial eternal loop. That
>>>>>> one premise is false about HHH with DDD is a part of what was asked.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mike explains all of the details of exactly how a
>>>>> correct Simulating Halt Decider is derived from
>>>>> the exact meaning of the words that professor Sipser
>>>>> agreed to IN THE PART THAT YOU IGNORED
>>>>
>>>> No, he does not. He does not even believe that it is possible to derive
>>>> a correct Simulating Halt Decider form the exact meaning of any words.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's correct.
>>>
>>> We could build a correct /partial/ SHD though, which I explained.  
>>> The idea behind an PSHD is ok, and a class of HP inputs could be 
>>> correctly decided with a PSHD.  Obviously a PSHD H could not decide 
>>> its corresponding H^ input, as the Linz HP proof implies.  Since PO's 
>>> HHH / does/ decide its corresponding DD (incorrectly), it is not a 
>>> PSHD, since PSHDs are not allowed to decide incorrectly.  [A 
>>> correctly coded PSHD HHH would never halt when given its (HHH^,HHH^) 
>>> input.
>>>
>>> PO's problem is that he misunderstands the entire context of Sipser's 
>>> words.  Sipser's words concern how a PSHD H could decide some FIXED 
>>> INPUT D it has been given. 
>>
>> Mike's reviews of my work are at least ten-fold better
>> than the next best reviewer. Mike is one of the few
>> people here that really wants an honest dialogue. He
>> carefully examined my code and has a nearly perfect
>> understanding.
> 
> And he still points out how you are wrong.
> 
>>
>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
>>
>> Most everyone else only seems to care about rebuttal
>> at the expense of truth. Keith and Ben also seem to
>> care about truth.
> 
> No, rebuttal for the SAKE of truth.
> 
>>
>> <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
> 
> Right, ans since your HHH and DDD are not programs

I will not tolerate changing the subject you damned liar!

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