Path: 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 13:30:40 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 256
Message-ID: <100f18f$1iree$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> <100dst7$18epo$1@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 12:30:40 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8f4381c44869abbb66b062db77a9c084";
	logging-data="1666510"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/BDszqR3S7lV2MdYMQrkny"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:2K4egcb2ZMc8C/fLvhCLfl4C3hc=

On 2025-05-19 00:10:15 +0000, olcott said:

> 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;
>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> _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.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I have corrected you on this too many times.
>>>>>>>>> HHH and DDD are in the same memory space.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> WHich means that since DDD references HHH, for DDD to be a program, you 
>>>>>>>> can't change HHH.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Thus, to do you hypothetical, you need to put it somewhere else in 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========