Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!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: Mon, 19 May 2025 23:10:54 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 65
Message-ID: <100gvce$22oen$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> <100f06a$1ije7$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 20 May 2025 06:10:55 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7b186bbc1de8333ac6766257195eacc5";
	logging-data="2187735"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18byWHs4JUB0O6tl31TSuMs"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:QzG1B7PPy6JNTLQWvOStvow1tN0=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250519-2, 5/19/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <100f06a$1ije7$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Bytes: 4142

On 5/19/2025 5:12 AM, Mikko wrote:
> 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
> 

HHH is required to report, that is why it
must always report on the behavior of the
hypothetical H/D pair and not the actual
behavior of the actual H/D pair for every
non-terminating input.

-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer