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 15:03:07 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 224
Message-ID: <100dedr$15dil$3@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>
 <100ctuc$121rs$1@dont-email.me> <100d5b7$13m1e$1@dont-email.me>
 <221167c1bbedbbda1934b12f6b2c72de2c3a1f78@i2pn2.org>
 <100dckr$1586e$1@dont-email.me>
 <c5c825970bebea6bd8bfde7077f7ffc5ba0c30f5@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 22:03:08 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b5c72f95c645dee2c161954842d261f0";
	logging-data="1226325"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/WbFiyLo+c7EpHxpN+3PEG"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:wDSTySOYisqVwu/0VQxBtMtWt5M=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <c5c825970bebea6bd8bfde7077f7ffc5ba0c30f5@i2pn2.org>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250518-4, 5/18/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US

On 5/18/2025 2:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/18/25 3:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/18/2025 2:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/18/25 1:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/18/2025 10:21 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>> On 18/05/2025 10:09, 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Right.  It seems to be a recent innovation in PO's wording that he 
>>>>> has started using the phrase "..bases its decision on a different 
>>>>> *HHH/DDD pair* ..".
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 5/14/2025 7:36 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>> we can easily interpret that as saying exactly what I said a SHD 
>>>> does above. It tells PO that in the tight loop example, H correctly 
>>>> simulates as far as [A], at which point it correctly determines that 
>>>> "its simulated input would never stop running unless aborted", so it 
>>>> can decide "non-halting".
>>>>
>>>> Thus SHD must report on a different SHD/Infinite_Loop pair
>>>> where this hypothetical instance of itself never aborts.
>>>>
>>>> If H always reports on the behavior of its simulated
>>>> input after it aborts then every input including
>>>> infinite_loop would be determined to be halting.
>>>>
>>>> Instead H must report on the hypothetical H/D input
>>>> pair where the very same H has been made to not abort
>>>> its input.
>>>>
>>>> void DDD()
>>>> {
>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>    return;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> _DDD()
>>>> [00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
>>>> [00002173] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
>>>> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
>>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
>>>> [0000217f] 83c404     add esp,+04
>>>> [00002182] 5d         pop ebp
>>>> [00002183] c3         ret
>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>>>>
>>>> *H correctly determines that its simulated D*
>>>> *would never stop running unless aborted*
>>>> by a hypothetical instance of itself that never aborts.
>>>>
>>>> Unless HHH aborts its simulation of DDD then
>>>> (a) The simulated DDD
>>>> (b) The executed HHH()
>>>> (c) The executed DDD()
>>>> (d) Every function that HHH calls
>>>> NEVER STOP RUNNING
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> The first problem is your DDD is just a category error, and NOTHING 
>>> (correct) can simulate this DDD past the call the HHH as that code 
>>> isn't in the input.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========