Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Mike Terry Proves --- How the requirements that Professor Sipser
 agreed to are exactly met
Date: Sun, 18 May 2025 13:36:32 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 118
Message-ID: <100d9bg$14e15$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$1@dont-email.me> <100c83u$tspg$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 18 May 2025 20:36:33 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b5c72f95c645dee2c161954842d261f0";
	logging-data="1194021"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX184ICryVUD/xyce3In2ThwQ"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:rgGCcxlspkPOy7Yqaihm+MmT+AA=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250518-4, 5/18/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <100c83u$tspg$1@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean

On 5/18/2025 4:09 AM, Mikko wrote:
> 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.
> 

Mike's SHD does the exact same thing.

It does not base its decision on the actual SHD/Infinite_Loop
pair that aborts its simulation and stops running. This would
require SHD to report that Infinite_Loop halts.

Mike's SHD bases its decision on a purely hypothetical
SHD/Infinite_Loop pair where SHD never aborts.

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