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 19:00:29 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 44
Message-ID: <100b7ut$khnq$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vvte01$14pca$29@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$2@dont-email.me> <100aqqj$i8i0$1@dont-email.me>
 <4637d932171b8e508e2e937883627ace67a37878@i2pn2.org>
 <100atdg$ilsf$1@dont-email.me>
 <68ba33506c9c85de8f7ba9f43a5e56dd0565144e@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 18 May 2025 02:00:29 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="95cd7ab4fbc269222bd094bf289b9f2a";
	logging-data="673530"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18l57komHnppNPBEejgAxb6"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:iN37RDQroC4vL/wJ1SdFTjsXSxk=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250517-6, 5/17/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <68ba33506c9c85de8f7ba9f43a5e56dd0565144e@i2pn2.org>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean

On 5/17/2025 6:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/17/25 5:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>>
>> That <is> its correct criterion measure and Mike
>> uses this same criterion measure on his infinite
>> loop example.
> 
> But it only does a correct simulation if it doesn't abort its simulation.
> 
> PERIOD.
> 
>>
>> On 5/14/2025 7:36 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>> https://al.howardknight.net/? 
>> STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3C1003cu5%242p3g1%241%40dont-email.me%3E
>>
>>     H correctly simulates as far as [A], at which point
>>     it correctly determines that
>>     "its simulated input would never stop running unless aborted",
>>     so it can decide "non-halting".
>>
>> H is not reporting on actual the behavior of H(D)
>> that halts after D has been aborted.
> 
> It isn't? Then it isn't a Halt Decider.
> 

Mike said it is a correct partial halt decider
when his SHD simulates an infinite loop and then
reports on the behavior of what would happen
if this SHD did not abort its simulation.

Thus Mike says that the SHD should not report
on the actual behavior of SHD/infinite loop
that does abort its input.

If you can't pay attention to these details about
what Mike said because of your ADD how is your
performance at work? Does anyone at work notice
that you can't keep focus on a single point?

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