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