Path: 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: Sat, 24 May 2025 10:40:01 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 234
Message-ID: <100sp8h$p071$11@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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 24 May 2025 17:40:02 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f513fb0f9fd54277dcf2467a994ccda0";
	logging-data="819425"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+UDz/oi8/V/h8UOHkoi2pi"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:0PkKrGbBajNqJmHoUhMB6cwQ+pY=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250524-4, 5/24/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <100f0m7$1in31$1@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US

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]
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========