Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Mike Terry Proves --- How the requirements that Professor Sipser
 agreed to are exactly met
Date: Tue, 20 May 2025 19:51:59 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 100
Message-ID: <100ifg1$2bf5g$2@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>
 <100gvce$22oen$1@dont-email.me> <100h9a5$24gpu$1@dont-email.me>
 <100i37l$292ko$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 19:52:02 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a7a75f5ec4b876a673431082fc484fcf";
	logging-data="2473136"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19q8bAarjRkgwXR2+CcfBVq"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:rid5oJMVPjun9zvGJPOGNukp0z4=
Content-Language: nl, en-GB
In-Reply-To: <100i37l$292ko$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5744

Op 20.mei.2025 om 16:22 schreef olcott:
> On 5/20/2025 2:00 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-05-20 04:10:54 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Every decider is required to report. But your (c) above prevents the
>> hypothetical H from reporting. Therefore the hypothetical H is not a
>> decider.
>>
> 
> I wish that people would pay attention.
> People only glance at a couple of words that I say
> then artificially contrive a fake rebuttal.
> 
> *We are ONLY measuring HHH/DDD against this criteria*
> <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
> 

We use the same criteria. We see that there is no correct simulation and 
that H does not correctly determine that its simulated D would never 
stop running. In fact the input specified to H contains code to abort, 
so a simulation of this input without abort would lead to a natural halt.

So, because the criteria are not met, we see that Sipser agreed to a 
vacuous statement.

But you do not pay attention to what is said, because you stay in 
rebuttal mode and, after seeing just a few words, keep repeating 
statements that are proven to be irrelevant, without even touching the 
fact that you are proven to be irrelevant.