Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Mike Terry Proves --- How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met
Date: Mon, 19 May 2025 13:12:26 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 56
Message-ID: <100f06a$1ije7$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> <ddbd48b20851b2362f0841506e0ffe32430323d9@i2pn2.org> <100dbpt$14tvf$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 19 May 2025 12:12:27 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8f4381c44869abbb66b062db77a9c084";
	logging-data="1658311"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/qfSQCOvC8n2WhsKuc2zf4"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:t04yaUN6XreZYXWvH58mxy5ZEMw=
Bytes: 3481

On 2025-05-18 19:18:21 +0000, olcott said:

> On 5/18/2025 2:08 PM, joes wrote:
>> Am Sun, 18 May 2025 12:28:05 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> 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:
>> 
>>>>>> 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* ..".
>>>> 
>>> Thus SHD must report on a different SHD/Infinite_Loop pair where this
>>> hypothetical instance of itself never aborts.
>> This, the simulator. The input still calls the same real aborting HHH.
>> 
>>> 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.
>> Yes, that is why H is wrong.
>> 
>>> Instead H must report on the hypothetical H/D input pair where the very
>>> same H has been made to not abort its input.
>> Just no.
>> 
>>> *H correctly determines that its simulated D*
>>> *would never stop running unless aborted*
>>> by a hypothetical instance of itself that never aborts.
>> H does stop running when simulated without aborting, because it aborts.
>> 
> 
> H is required to report on the behavior of D in the
> case where a hypothetical instance of itself never
> aborts its simulated D.
> 
> When the hypothetical H never aborts its simulated D then:
> (a) Simulated D  NEVER HALTS
> (b) Executed D() NEVER HALTS
> (c) Executed H() NEVER HALTS
> (d) Everything that H calls NEVER HALTS

You forgot
(e) H does not report

-- 
Mikko