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: Wed, 21 May 2025 11:07:29 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 97
Message-ID: <100k1k1$2o767$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> <100ifg1$2bf5g$2@dont-email.me> <100ik7e$2chbn$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 21 May 2025 10:07:29 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7c4ab65116ae26c95115ab40bfd13df1";
	logging-data="2890951"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/jDccg6cO2C/cMQlX/4fz/"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:h4RseBPRzmPOk7/PuNGuei2ms60=
Bytes: 5626

On 2025-05-20 19:12:46 +0000, olcott said:

> On 5/20/2025 12:51 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> 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.
>> 
> 
> That is merely your lack sufficient software skills.

The skill to lie about some software is not a sofware skill.

-- 
Mikko