Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Mike Terry Proves --- How the requirements that Professor Sipser
 agreed to are exactly met
Date: Thu, 22 May 2025 20:05:27 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <1eca611e549d56bbe656a860b9015dc500520f90@i2pn2.org>
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>
 <FT3XP.1290848$4AM6.642835@fx17.ams4> <100k1h4$2o767$1@dont-email.me>
 <100ks7p$2tae8$2@dont-email.me> <100mm4r$3caok$1@dont-email.me>
 <100o98h$3md6k$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 23 May 2025 00:05:39 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1515406"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <100o98h$3md6k$4@dont-email.me>

On 5/22/25 6:42 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/22/2025 3:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-05-21 15:41:45 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 5/21/2025 3:05 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2025-05-20 18:31:01 +0000, Mr Flibble said:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 20 May 2025 19:51:59 +0200, 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> The halting problem is defined in terms of UTMs with infinite tape so
>>>>
>>>> It usually isn't. There are many variants of the problem but if you
>>>> have an oracle for one of the you can solve them all. Usually an UTM
>>>> is not mentioned in the problem statement. The tape is potentially
>>>> infinite but one execution of a decider never uses more than a finite
>>>> segment of the tape.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think that I am the original inventor of
>>> the notion of simulating halt decider as it
>>> pertains to the halting problem proofs.
>>>
>>> Computer Science professor Eric Hehner PhD
>>> was the first one that noticed this:
>>>
>>> *Problems with the Halting Problem*
>>>  From a programmer's point of view, if we apply
>>> an interpreter to a program text that includes
>>> a call to that same interpreter with that same
>>> text as argument, then we have an infinite loop.
>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf
>>>
>>> Professor Hehner did not notice that the above
>>> could be used to create a simulating halt decider
>>> that rejects the conventional HP counter-example
>>> input as non-halting.
>>
>> It can't. A decider, unlike a simulator, cannot be infinitely looping.
>>
> 
> void Infinite_Loop()
> {
>    HERE: goto HERE;
>    return;
> }
> 
> _Infinite_Loop()
> [0000212e] 55             push ebp
> [0000212f] 8bec           mov ebp,esp
> [00002131] ebfe           jmp 00002131
> [00002133] 5d             pop ebp
> [00002134] c3             ret
> Size in bytes:(0007) [00002134]
> 
> In other words (even though Mike proved otherwise)
> No one and nothing can possibly know that an infinite
> loop will never terminate until they wait until
> the end of time and it didn't stop running yet.
> 
> Why the Hell are you trying to get away with something
> so moronically stupid?
> 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========