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: Sun, 18 May 2025 15:51:13 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <a096aa5160cb41e9ccda381fa18a3bb5de3bc38c@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>
 <100d9bg$14e15$1@dont-email.me>
 <65b8b3cf6fafd7796e2c0e85ea2ae2a563b50101@i2pn2.org>
 <100dd8s$15dil$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 18 May 2025 19:51:26 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="925887"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <100dd8s$15dil$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 7138
Lines: 137

On 5/18/25 3:43 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/18/2025 2:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/18/25 2:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/18/2025 4:09 AM, 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Mike's SHD does the exact same thing.
>>>
>>> It does not base its decision on the actual SHD/Infinite_Loop
>>> pair that aborts its simulation and stops running. This would
>>> require SHD to report that Infinite_Loop halts.
>>>
>>> Mike's SHD bases its decision on a purely hypothetical
>>> SHD/Infinite_Loop pair where SHD never aborts.
>>>
>>
>> Nope, Mikes SHD bases its decision on the fact that it can prove that 
>> the actual correct simulation of the input will never halt.
>>
> 
> That is incorrect. Mike's SHD proves by a correct partial
> simulation that a complete simulation cannot possibly exist.

No, it shows that a complete simulation would run forever.

There is nothing "impossible" about a forever runnihg program or simulation.

> 
> Likewise HHH proves by a correct partial simulation
> that a complete simulation of DDD cannot possibly exist.
> 

But HHH1 shows that it can be done, so obviously your logic is wrong.