Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!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 19:02:07 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <f02a2fb26f6e1dedd29638f9b42befaab4781f17@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>
 <35c9fb020e868823c3e46c006d9ac4698eaf4f82@i2pn2.org>
 <100dl6g$16vdn$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 23:23:52 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="946645"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <100dl6g$16vdn$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0

On 5/18/25 5:58 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/18/2025 3:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/18/25 4:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/18/2025 3:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/18/25 4:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/18/2025 2:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/18/25 3:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/18/2025 2:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/18/25 1:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/18/2025 10:21 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 18/05/2025 10:09, 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Right.  It seems to be a recent innovation in PO's wording 
>>>>>>>>>> that he has started using the phrase "..bases its decision on 
>>>>>>>>>> a different *HHH/DDD pair* ..".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thus SHD must report on a different SHD/Infinite_Loop pair
>>>>>>>>> where this hypothetical instance of itself never aborts.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If H always reports on the behavior of its simulated
>>>>>>>>> input after it aborts then every input including
>>>>>>>>> infinite_loop would be determined to be halting.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Instead H must report on the hypothetical H/D input
>>>>>>>>> pair where the very same H has been made to not abort
>>>>>>>>> its input.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _DDD()
>>>>>>>>> [00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>>> [00002173] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>>> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========