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 15:18:04 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 169
Message-ID: <100aqts$i8i0$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$1@dont-email.me>
 <6b21dc04df76f0c91517919081b83705a3aeb359@i2pn2.org>
 <100aq6g$i785$2@dont-email.me>
 <db76c94db78d3c47a8b2c7d69f8cccf84613727b@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 22:18:05 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6ea8251727358be87ec7627194d1f4d0";
	logging-data="598592"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19A9HT3+wj4EiW+/kJevHLD"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:GrxsKFQHe6iA+xWeo1b/zI0zLJ4=
In-Reply-To: <db76c94db78d3c47a8b2c7d69f8cccf84613727b@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250517-6, 5/17/2025), Outbound message

On 5/17/2025 3:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/17/25 4:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>> 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!
>>
> 
> Who is changing the subject, and how is it being changed?
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========