Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong ---
Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2024 13:57:41 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 78
Message-ID: <v3ifb5$3f571$9@dont-email.me>
References: <v3501h$lpnh$1@dont-email.me> <v3bduk$2im01$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v3bedb$22f8h$1@dont-email.me> <v3bfbm$2im01$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v3bg39$22o6m$1@dont-email.me> <v3cbhu$2k3ld$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v3clo2$28p7n$1@dont-email.me> <v3dft1$2lfup$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v3dhob$2dio8$1@dont-email.me> <v3dk0d$2lfup$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v3dkf2$2e2po$1@dont-email.me> <v3dmnc$2lfup$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v3do66$2ejq2$1@dont-email.me>
 <MPG.40c4fbcb474992459896fd@reader.eternal-september.org>
 <v3f9ha$2qh0t$1@dont-email.me> <v3ffpc$2n53n$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v3fgfb$2riae$2@dont-email.me> <v3fh1a$2n53o$5@i2pn2.org>
 <v3fhkr$2rsbs$2@dont-email.me> <v3fig4$2n53n$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v3fj8h$2rsbs$6@dont-email.me> <v3g0bg$2n53n$18@i2pn2.org>
 <v3g0n2$2v3lp$2@dont-email.me> <v3g329$2n53n$21@i2pn2.org>
 <v3g3np$2vk55$1@dont-email.me> <v3g7e9$2n53n$22@i2pn2.org>
 <v3g7r8$30c96$1@dont-email.me> <v3heeh$2psm0$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v3i1a5$3cpu7$7@dont-email.me> <v3icta$3f51j$3@dont-email.me>
 <v3ie4d$3f571$4@dont-email.me> <v3if0c$3f51j$9@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2024 20:57:41 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3e1a2626012d6c432c11247ed1bf0353";
	logging-data="3642593"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19MMqkNZsDc8hn8EV4lqoUw"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:5jRkPQQZkA9RTMHdHUgu4e85nvE=
In-Reply-To: <v3if0c$3f51j$9@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5197

On 6/2/2024 1:51 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 02.jun.2024 om 20:37 schreef olcott:
>> On 6/2/2024 1:16 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 02.jun.2024 om 16:58 schreef olcott:
>>>> On 6/2/2024 4:36 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>> Am Sat, 01 Jun 2024 17:37:28 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/1/2024 5:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/1/24 5:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/1/2024 4:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/24 4:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/2024 3:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/24 12:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/2024 11:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/24 12:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/2024 11:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/24 11:58 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/2024 10:46 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/24 10:00 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Every DD correctly simulated by any HH of the infinite set of HH/DD
>>>>>>>> pairs that match the above template never reaches past its own
>>>>>>>> simulated line 03 in 1 to ∞ steps of correct simulation of DD by 
>>>>>>>> HH.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But since the simulation was aborted,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *The above never mentions anything about any simulation being 
>>>>>> aborted*
>>>>> Not simulating an infinite number of steps of infinite recursion is
>>>>> incorrect. You always forget this requirement: the simulation must be
>>>>> complete.
>>>>
>>>> When every possible simulation where DD is correctly simulated by HH
>>>> never reaches past its own simulated line 03 then we know for sure that
>>>> No DD correctly simulated by HH ever halts.
>>>
>>> Similarly:
>>>
>>> When every possible simulation where HH is correctly simulated by itself
>>> never reaches its own return then we know for sure that no HH 
>>> correctly simulated by HH ever halts.
>>>
>>
>> *I am not going to keep repeating myself, I will simply give up on you*
>>
>> HH(DD,DD) correctly detects that DD correctly simulated by HH cannot
>> possibly halt because HH keeps calling HH(DD,DD) in recursive
>> simulation.
> 
> Similarly HH(DD,DD) correctly detects that HH correctly simulated by HH 
> cannot possibly halt, because HH keeps calling HH(DD,DD) in recursive
> simulation.
> 

HH(DD,DD) correctly simulates DD(DD) that calls HH(DD,DD) in recursive
simulation proving that the directly executed HH(DD,DD) can correctly
reject its input as non-halting.

MIT Professor Michael Sipser agreed this verbatim paragraph is correct
(He has neither reviewed nor agreed to anything else in this paper)

<Professor Sipser agreed>
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.
</Professor Sipser agreed>

The above criteria provides the basis for a correct solution to the 
halting problem.

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer