Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Mike Terry Proves --- How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met
Date: Sun, 18 May 2025 12:09:18 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 105
Message-ID: <100c83u$tspg$1@dont-email.me>
References: <1005jsk$3akrk$1@dont-email.me> <bc6f0f045212bdfb7f7d883426873a09e37789ea@i2pn2.org> <1005u6v$3cpt2$1@dont-email.me> <1006oi9$3l93f$1@dont-email.me> <1007kan$3qb7l$8@dont-email.me> <1009n2d$b9ol$1@dont-email.me> <100ag73$g1r8$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 18 May 2025 11:09:19 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="38d7044645399eb8fa663d5af2101abf";
	logging-data="979760"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19A4t+ZA57L4N3WSwIgfsG7"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:7f7oHpzgRUqvQPbxrJE2W8FoqE0=

On 2025-05-17 17:15:14 +0000, olcott said:

> On 5/17/2025 5:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-05-16 15:07:03 +0000, olcott said:
>> 
>>> On 5/16/2025 2:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2025-05-15 23:43:27 +0000, olcott said:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 5/15/2025 6:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/15/25 4:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> I overcome the proof of undecidability of the Halting
>>>>>>> Problem in that the code that
>>>>>>> "does the opposite of whatever value that HHH returns"
>>>>>>> becomes unreachable to DD correctly simulated by HHH.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Nope, only to youtr INCORRECTLY simuated by HHH.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> In other words you believe that professor Sipser
>>>>> screwed up when he agreed with 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>
>>>> 
>>>> One may indeed thik so. Or pehaps he knew what he was doing but cheated.
>>>> To sincerely agree with you without extreme care is an error.
>>> 
>>> On 5/14/2025 7:36 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>  > There is a natural (and correct) statement that Sipser
>>>  > is far more likely (I'd say) to have agreed to.
>> 
>> That is compatible with the idea that Sipser scewed up or cheated.
>> 
>>>  > First you should understand the basic idea behind a
>>>  > "Simulating Halt Decider" (*SHD*) that /partially/
>>>  > simulates its input, while observing each simulation
>>>  > step looking for certain halting/non-halting patterns
>>>  > in the simulation. A simple (working) example here
>>>  > is an input which goes into a tight loop.
>>> (Mike says much more about this)
>>> 
>>> *Click here to get the whole article*
>>> https://al.howardknight.net/? 
>>> STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3C1003cu5%242p3g1%241%40dont-email.me%3E
>>> 
>>> Message-ID: <1003cu5$2p3g1$1@dont-email.me>
>> 
>> There he explains an error in your claim to meet the requirements that
>> Professor Sipser agreed.
>> 
>> He also shows that your "In other words you believe that professor
>> Sipser screwed up when he agreed with these exact words" is not
>> supported by evidence (but that is quite obvious anyway).
>> 
> 
> *That is fully addressed in my reply to Mike*
> On 5/17/2025 10:31 AM, olcott wrote:
> [How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly
>   met --- Mike my best reviewer]
> 
> Message-ID: <100aa5c$f19u$1@dont-email.me>
> https://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3C100aa5c%24f19u%241%40dont-email.me%3E 
> 

That page does not show all of the message.

You say there:

> 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.

Mike and I agree about everything essential in these discussion, and
I havn't noticed any disagreement is the less essential.

Your statement "Mike is one of the few people here that really wants
an honest dialogue" is far from true. Some peole may have a stronger
desire to keep the discussion honest but there are not many who have
any reason to want any dishonest discussion. Of course everyone's
ability to keep the discussion honest is restricted to ones own
contributions.

You also say:

> HHH(DDD) does not base its decision on the actual
> behavior of DDD after it has aborted its simulation
> of DDD, instead it bases its decision on a different
> HHH/DDD pair that never aborts.

This is why HHH does not satisfy "H correctly determines that its
simulated D would never stop running unless aborted". If HHH bases
its decision on anything else than what its actual input actually
specifies it does not decide correctly.

-- 
Mikko