Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!border-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-4.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 12 May 2025 17:14:04 +0000
Date: Mon, 12 May 2025 12:14:03 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt
 decider
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
References: <ti6l95$1h8qt$1@dont-email.me> <ikH1L.623536$iiS8.264549@fx17.iad>
 <ti7g4u$1jb5g$1@dont-email.me> <87bkqg4n7v.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com>
In-Reply-To: <87bkqg4n7v.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250512-4, 5/12/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Message-ID: <4R2dnb1_sKrBsb_1nZ2dnZfqlJ-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 78
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-NPuDDUUjcTaQNxwYghJybulDFkZUtiNdplSlOWR91byMmnoI3fNYUBHTxb3mGFBx6RxGIpg0I+NznxZ!B5Gbx7KozRXuu1xuHEH6VJnHdwyN6A8QWSbi/EuEQDFJtA3jgr63RlqOJlVhG/b5B5tSqriuadBF
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40

On 10/12/2022 6:49 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes:
>> On 10/12/2022 5:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 10/12/22 11:08 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim paragraph
>>>> looks correct:
>>
>> <quoted email to professor Sipser>
>> Here is what I would like to say:
>>
>> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim paragraph
>> looks correct:
>>
>>     If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation
>>     of D would never stop  running unless aborted, would it be
>>     correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D
>>     specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations?
>>
>> This validates the idea of a simulating halt decider referenced in
>> this paper.
>>
>> Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof
>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof
>>
>> Professor Sipser has not had the time to carefully review this paper
>> presented to him.
>> </quoted email to professor Sipser>
>>
>> <quoted reply from professor Sipser>
>> Looks ok.  Thanks for checking.
>> </quoted reply from professor Sipser>
>>
>>> IF I drop by and ask him face to face, will he confirm this?
>>
>> Yes.
> 
> Would Professor Sipser agree that you have refuted his halting problem
> proof?
> 
> If I understand this correctly, it does not support the idea that a
> general "simulating halt decider" can actually exist.
> 
> In the above, let D be a program that may or may not halt, and let H be
> an observer who attempts to determine whether or not D halts.
> Concretely, let D be this C program or equivalent:
> 
>      int main(void) { while (1) { } }
> 
> and I'll be H.  I can observe D.  I can simulate it until I get bored,
> which won't take long (one iteration, two iterations, three iterations,
> zzzzzzzzz).  I can, while simulating it, conclude that it will never
> halt, abort the simulation, and report that it never halts.  It wouldn't
> be difficult to automate the process in a way that works for this simple
> case.
> 

My scope is to prove that the "impossible"
input to all the halting problem proofs <is>
decidable. Refuting the halting problem itself
has never been in scope.

int DD()
{
   int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}

HHH(DD) does correctly determine that its input DD
would never stop running unless aborted.

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott

"Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
  Genius hits a target no one else can see."
  Arthur Schopenhauer