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: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly
 met --- Dishonest reviewers
Date: Sat, 17 May 2025 16:01:40 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <b4381d926976f8d36e7cc1f50c62981df09d033f@i2pn2.org>
References: <vvte01$14pca$29@dont-email.me> <vvuj6l$1j6s0$3@dont-email.me>
 <b78af2e0b52f178683b672b45ba1bc2012023aaf@i2pn2.org>
 <1000dlc$21dtc$5@dont-email.me> <1000qdb$24gr3$4@dont-email.me>
 <1000rir$24jh0$3@dont-email.me> <1000rqc$24gr3$7@dont-email.me>
 <1000son$24sr2$3@dont-email.me>
 <7947826fb84c9c8db49c392b305d395c3669907f@i2pn2.org>
 <1002dre$2i4bk$14@dont-email.me> <1002vp2$2mbr6$3@dont-email.me>
 <10030c3$2mivc$3@dont-email.me> <87h61mang3.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <1003cu5$2p3g1$1@dont-email.me> <1003dir$2p2so$2@dont-email.me>
 <1004h1m$331gh$4@dont-email.me> <1006igb$3joc3$1@dont-email.me>
 <10085ru$3tr3u$3@dont-email.me> <100876u$3tu2i$1@dont-email.me>
 <63cd387226816d18c922f5b67911ab13ce3ad071@i2pn2.org>
 <1008er1$3vlcm$3@dont-email.me>
 <f0b832e4a3c11e84bbd8f597d420a77b6bae5a6f@i2pn2.org>
 <1008mem$150b$1@dont-email.me>
 <74025a25d23cae7e6590f32656d7423dd3c4f956@i2pn2.org>
 <1008ukb$66kl$3@dont-email.me> <1009jd5$ahg3$1@dont-email.me>
 <100alfu$gba7$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 17 May 2025 20:02:12 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="788159"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <100alfu$gba7$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 6878
Lines: 126

On 5/17/25 2:45 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/17/2025 4:03 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 17.mei.2025 om 05:08 schreef olcott:
>>> On 5/16/2025 9:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/16/25 8:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/16/2025 7:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/16/25 6:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/16/2025 5:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/16/25 4:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/16/2025 3:06 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Op 16.mei.2025 om 07:29 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>> *Not at all. I am following 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>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2025 7:36 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Shows exactly how to implement those words to implement
>>>>>>>>>>> a correct Simulating Termination Analyzer. Mike provides
>>>>>>>>>>> a complete example of how this works.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sipser agreed to a vacuous statement, because the condition 
>>>>>>>>>> 'correctly simulates' was not met.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And by this you mean that when the spec requires
>>>>>>>>> a partial simulation
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *until H correctly determines that its simulated D*
>>>>>>>>> *would never stop running unless aborted*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You "interpret" this to mean that it must
>>>>>>>>> infinitely simulate non-terminating inputs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which means, as I explained else, if H, after doing a partial 
>>>>>>>> simulation, can determine that a COMPLETE simulation of this 
>>>>>>>> exact input would be non-halting, it can abort.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not quite. One key detail is missing.
>>>>>>> *H correctly determines that its simulated D*
>>>>>>> *would never stop running unless aborted*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is referring to what the behavior of D would be
>>>>>>> (in the hypothetical case) where this very same
>>>>>>> H never aborted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, since D must stay D, and D must be a fully encoded program 
>>>>>> and thus doesn't change when you make the hypothetical H.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Click here to get the whole article*
>>>>> https://al.howardknight.net/? 
>>>>> STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3C1003cu5%242p3g1%241%40dont-email.me%3E
>>>>>
>>>>> Mike perfectly explains all of this with a concrete
>>>>> example. In this case H determines that its infinite
>>>>> loop input would never stop running unless aborted
>>>>> so it aborts it and correctly rejects it.
>>>>>
>>>>> H is not being asked what is the behavior of this
>>>>> infinite loop after H aborts it. It is being asked
>>>>> what its behavior would be if H never aborted it.
>>>>>
>>>>> HHH is not being asked what is the behavior of
>>>>> DDD after HHH aborts it. It is being asked
>>>>> what its behavior would be if HHH never aborted it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What makes you think I haven't.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You haven't what?
>>>
>>>> And, since DDD needs to be a PROGRAM to do any of this, as non-leaf 
>>>> functions can't be correctly emulated, that DDD DOES include the 
>>>> code of the HHH it was built for, which is the HHH that aborts and 
>>>> returns 0.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is the job of HHH to determine whether or not its
>>> input *WOULD NEVER STOP RUNNING UNLESS ABORTED*
>>
>> No, it is the task of HHH to determine whether *this* input, that 
>> includes Halt7.c and which does specify a conditional abort, halts.
> 
> I am only asking DOES HHH meet the above spec?
> You keep changing the subject away from this.

WHich it doesn't, but you think it does as you don't understand the 
meaning of the specification.

THe fact that your HHH and DDD aren't even of the propery type to be 
mapped into that requirement seems oblivious to you.

It sort of like asking if Green is greater than Red, because you are 
confusing colors to numbers.

> 
> *This is an axiom of the above spec*
> *WOULD NEVER STOP RUNNING UNLESS ABORTED*

I guess you don't know what a axiom is.

> 
> When you disagree you change the subject
> away from: DOES HHH meet the above spec?

Since the problem is you don't understand what the specification means, 
I guess you are saying that correctly the errors in your foundation are 
off topic, because you don't allow logic into your discussionl.

> 
> Changing the subject is a favorite tactic
> of my dishonest reviewers.
>