Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!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 19:35:56 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <978bae28b0d41c0f0f3e55bd4c51a985477ffa75@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>
 <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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 22 May 2025 23:57:05 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1514745"; 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: <100o84l$3md6k$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4525
Lines: 67

On 5/22/25 6:23 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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
> 
> 
> 

Right, we can prove the infinite loop won't halt, because we can 
correctly prove that the correct simulatio of it will not halt with only 
  a partial simulation.

Since the correct simulation of the DDD that calls the HHH that aborts 
and returns 0, means that HHH can't "correctly determine" that *THIS* 
input will not halt when correctly simulated/

Your logic just LIES by changing the input, or using an input that 
doesn't include all of its code and thus is not correctly simulateable.

(The latter is what you have admitted to, and thus your whole argument 
fails on a category error).