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: Tue, 20 May 2025 10:13:40 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 237
Message-ID: <100ha34$24lfd$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> <100f0m7$1in31$1@dont-email.me> <100h052$22oen$3@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 09:13:41 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e4b1e6a0502726b5c6a0d4685a4eeae0";
	logging-data="2250221"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18Z6suKNaYBHnzA4AUGvO46"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:GalF35wNNWYBOptLhJoM78yo/r4=
Bytes: 12184

On 2025-05-20 04:24:02 +0000, olcott said:

> On 5/19/2025 5:20 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-05-18 20:19:19 +0000, olcott said:
>> 
>>> 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 ==========