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 19:10:15 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 267
Message-ID: <100dst7$18epo$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>
 <100dfc8$15qbo$1@dont-email.me>
 <35c9fb020e868823c3e46c006d9ac4698eaf4f82@i2pn2.org>
 <100dl6g$16vdn$1@dont-email.me>
 <f02a2fb26f6e1dedd29638f9b42befaab4781f17@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 19 May 2025 02:10:16 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="54427c6633a8689b841d1d48a1b07f55";
	logging-data="1325880"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX191ORa/5KoWx1sI+6sI5d7w"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:BnPgolpzV5Yox7Qk+PVHTHiAgdA=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <f02a2fb26f6e1dedd29638f9b42befaab4781f17@i2pn2.org>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250518-4, 5/18/2025), Outbound message

On 5/18/2025 6:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/18/25 5:58 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/18/2025 3:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/18/25 4:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> 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;
>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========