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 19:05:58 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 203
Message-ID: <100b896$khnq$2@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> <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$1@dont-email.me>
 <68ba33506c9c85de8f7ba9f43a5e56dd0565144e@i2pn2.org>
 <8n9WP.617511$lZjd.338181@fx05.ams4>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 18 May 2025 02:05:59 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="95cd7ab4fbc269222bd094bf289b9f2a";
	logging-data="673530"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+7C6kP3s0994FoD+ooG3yS"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:b52eNcDr1lj4ausks3oJMRj2bZs=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250517-6, 5/17/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <8n9WP.617511$lZjd.338181@fx05.ams4>

On 5/17/2025 6:56 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Sat, 17 May 2025 19:35:12 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
> 
>> On 5/17/25 5:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/17/2025 3:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/17/25 4:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/17/2025 3:05 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!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> *H correctly determines that its simulated D*
>>>>> *would never stop running unless aborted*
>>>>
>>>> No it doesn't, not unless H never aborts its input.
>>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========