Deutsch   English   Français   Italiano  
<100dd8s$15dil$1@dont-email.me>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article

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 14:43:24 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 132
Message-ID: <100dd8s$15dil$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>
 <100d9bg$14e15$1@dont-email.me>
 <65b8b3cf6fafd7796e2c0e85ea2ae2a563b50101@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 21:43:25 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b5c72f95c645dee2c161954842d261f0";
	logging-data="1226325"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+M8Hg1tAZx7QkI5RUE84dP"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Z394BSkCc+hI1XnyRD6c+9bgxu8=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250518-4, 5/18/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <65b8b3cf6fafd7796e2c0e85ea2ae2a563b50101@i2pn2.org>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US

On 5/18/2025 2:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/18/25 2:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> 
> Nope, Mikes SHD bases its decision on the fact that it can prove that 
> the actual correct simulation of the input will never halt.
> 

That is incorrect. Mike's SHD proves by a correct partial
simulation that a complete simulation cannot possibly exist.

Likewise HHH proves by a correct partial simulation
that a complete simulation of DDD cannot possibly exist.

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