Path: 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: Sun, 25 May 2025 10:52:25 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 86
Message-ID: <100ui7p$195e2$1@dont-email.me>
References: <1005jsk$3akrk$1@dont-email.me> <1009n2d$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> <100ha34$24lfd$1@dont-email.me> <100i4cs$292ko$3@dont-email.me> <100i5us$29du3$3@dont-email.me> <100i776$2a4c8$1@dont-email.me> <100i88j$2aalm$1@dont-email.me> <100ia0b$2abui$1@dont-email.me> <100ibhe$2au2m$2@dont-email.me> <100ibki$2b0gv$1@dont-email.me> <100mog6$3co4j$1@dont-email.me> <100o84l$3md6k$1@dont-email.me> <100p6au$3vh96$1@dont-email.me> <100q88l$5buc$7@dont-email.me> <100rsbl$j8oq$1@dont-email.me> <100sp4o$p071$10@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 25 May 2025 09:52:26 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="aa1dcc3c73b18a626e48b434fd480c46";
	logging-data="1349058"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+RSJY6zyL6YGvi7Gxzdd3i"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:/vhwMESpZW4n37GlEZEPPX2hv/U=

On 2025-05-24 15:38:00 +0000, olcott said:

> On 5/24/2025 2:26 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-05-23 16:37:41 +0000, olcott said:
>> 
>>> On 5/23/2025 1:58 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2025-05-22 22:23:17 +0000, olcott said:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 5/22/2025 3:50 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-05-20 16:46:10 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 5/20/2025 11:44 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 20/05/2025 17:18, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> No one has actually made any rebuttal of my actual points.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> It's far from clear what your actual points are.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> But I repeat myself.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Mike Terry Proves ---
>>>>>>> How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> That does not clarify what your actual points are.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> You should answer all questions about you actual points with a
>>>>>> pointer to the paragraph on your web page where the answer is.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> *Here is Mike Terry Proving*
>>>>> 
>>>>> Re: Mike Terry Proves --- *RIGHT HERE RIGHT NOW*
>>>>> How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>  >
>>>>>  > 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*
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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".
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 5/14/2025 7:36 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>> https://al.howardknight.net/? 
>>>>> STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3C1003cu5%242p3g1%241%40dont-email.me%3E
>>>> 
>>>> So one of your actual points is that you are wrong as proven by Mike Terry.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Mike Terry was completely correct in exactly how
>>> these words define a simulating termination analyzer
>>> that correctly rejects an infinite loop.
>> 
>> Which means you were wrong when you tried to interprete them otherwise.
> 
> I have never interpreted them differently since the day
> that I wrote them.
> 
> <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
> 
> It is a tautology that any input D to a simulating termination
> analyzer H that must be aborted to prevent the its infinite
> execution is a non-terminating input.

You tried to interprete then to apply to your HHH. But your DD and
DDD never enter an infinite loop.

-- 
Mikko