Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2024 21:10:25 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <de15d0343e30737952d5f83d24b38e16bc28eb1b@i2pn2.org>
References: <vc6qlc$275or$1@dont-email.me>
 <bf2621f4b0a05cb076c7fa88222f245b7753a1c3@i2pn2.org>
 <vc7bad$2aodk$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2024 01:10:25 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2216147"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vc7bad$2aodk$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 6260
Lines: 124

On 9/15/24 3:07 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 9/15/2024 11:55 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 9/15/24 10:23 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>> Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof
>>> D(D) correctly reports its own halt status
>>>
>>> https://www.researchgate.net/ 
>>> publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof
>>>
>>
>> Nope, just proves you are a stupid ignorant liar that doesn't know 
>> what he is talking about.
>>
>> First, you title is incorrect, as it isn't "D" that needs to report 
>> its halt status, but the "H" that "D" Calls.
>>
>> Remember, in the problem H is, and only is, the machine that H is, and 
>> D is, and only is, the machine that D is, as the code in the problem 
>> presents.
>>
>>
>> Remember, you have been tole (but ignore) that the phrase:
>>
>> until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop 
>> running unless aborted
>>
>> Means that a CORRECT UNABORTED SIMULATION of *THIS* D would not stop, 
> 
> unless aborted, Therefore giving H is criterion measure.

No, the only correct emulation is an unaborted on, and, since H DOES 
abort, it isn;t correct, and to talk about the "correct emulation by H" 
is a contradiction, (not just an oxymoron, but does make you a regular 
moron).

As has been shown, when THIS D (The D that calls the H that gives the 
answer you claim) is actually correctly simulated, it will reacn an end.

Only your LIES that your H does a correct simulation that isn't actually 
a correct simulation becuase it thinks it is and aborts, point to what 
you want, and theu have been proven to be LIES.

> 
> <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

Right, and since a correct simulation of this input (the D that calls 
this H that will abort) will reach a final state, you are just proving 
your stupidity in claming H can correctly determine something to happen 
that doesn't actually happen.

Thus showing how broken your logic is.

Note, the biggest part of your problem is you somehow think it is ok to 
change the problem in the middle, in part because you don't understand 
what a "program" is.

Sorry, you are just proving that you have no idea what you are talking 
about and think that lying is a valid form of logic.

It appears that you are booking a perpetual ticket for a logic refresher 
course.

> 
>> but *THIS* D calls *THIS* H, which you admit *WILL* decide to abort 
>> (and thus its simulation is not the "correct simulation" we are to 
>> look at).
>>
>> Since THIS H does return to its caller, since it DOES abort, this 
>> means that the correct simulation of this D will halt, and thus this H 
>> never got the "authorization" to abort, but did so anyway and 
>> introduced its error into the system.
>>
>> Note, when you say:
>>
>> When H correctly simulates D it finds that D remains stuck in 
>> recursive simulation
>> Line 13: main() invokes D(D)
>> Line 06: Invoked D calls H that simulates D(D)
>> Line 06: Simulated D calls simulated H that simulates D(D) (repeats 
>> until aborted)
>>
>> Simulation Invariant: D simulated by H never reaches Line 07 or Line 08.
>>
>> We note that the first line is incorrect, as H DOESN'T correctly 
>> simulate D, as it DOES abort, and that the "repeats until aborted" 
>> talks about a condition that DOES happen, so if we look at the actual 
>> CORRECT simulation of D, we see that main invokes D(D) that calls 
>> H(D,D) that simulates its copy of D(D) for some time an then aborts 
>> that simulation and returns to D which returns to main, and thus halts.
>>
>> Thus, your "Simulation Invariant" is just a LIE.
>>
>> Of course, that is because you stupidly keep on confusing the behavior 
>> of D (simulated by H) with the behavior of the simulation of D by H.
>>
>> You seem to do this because you, in your ignorance, can't keep track 
>> of the difference between the TRUTH of the behavior of *THIS* D (the D 
>> that calls the H that simulates it for a while and then aborts and 
>> returns) with the knowledge that H gets by its PARTIAL simulation of 
>> its input D, and the behavior of a totally different program D (with 
>> the same code in the C functions D, but calling a different function 
>> H, with different behavior).
>>
>> These errors have been pointed out to you MANY times, and your 
>> repeating the error either says you are mentally incapable of learning 
>> facts, or you are just so brainwashed by yourself with your lies that 
>> you just refuse to accept the facts and thus make your self just a 
>> pathetic ignorant pathologically lying idiot.
>>
>>
>> Notd, at your end, you confuse the question, as you fill in the D / D 
>> line with "Accept" even though this is supposed to be the mapping 
>> function that H is computing, and BY YOUR ADMISSION, H REJECTED the 
>> input.
>>
>> Thus, you prove with that final comment that you just don't understand 
>> what you are talking about and are nothing but a LYING IDIOT.
>>
> 
>