Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<100dfc8$15qbo$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 15:19:19 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 230 Message-ID: <100dfc8$15qbo$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> <100ctuc$121rs$1@dont-email.me> <100d5b7$13m1e$1@dont-email.me> <221167c1bbedbbda1934b12f6b2c72de2c3a1f78@i2pn2.org> <100dckr$1586e$1@dont-email.me> <c5c825970bebea6bd8bfde7077f7ffc5ba0c30f5@i2pn2.org> <100dedr$15dil$3@dont-email.me> <771e0f3f36c9914146f675bc9e2c1c0e7903c116@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 22:19:20 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b5c72f95c645dee2c161954842d261f0"; logging-data="1239416"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/3beKy+gpa8w3e45IlPjm2" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:RkzYFIjW5kUUrsa8gMVP1Ga7c6M= X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250518-4, 5/18/2025), Outbound message Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <771e0f3f36c9914146f675bc9e2c1c0e7903c116@i2pn2.org> X-Antivirus-Status: Clean On 5/18/2025 3:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/18/25 4:03 PM, olcott wrote: >> 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 ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========