Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Mike Terry Reply to Fred Zwarts
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2024 12:52:33 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 112
Message-ID: <v3mrli$chc4$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v3j20v$3gm10$2@dont-email.me>
 <J_CdnTaA96jxpcD7nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <87h6eamkgf.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <v3kcdj$3stk9$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3l7uo$13cp$8@dont-email.me> <v3lcat$228t$3@dont-email.me>
 <v3mq9j$chc3$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2024 12:52:34 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="582df39bb1a7d9f05afabcda0481a71a";
	logging-data="411012"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX181KOsUPr/C38V/fsOl4eQA"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:+FSE1F2BlfnirV8L51pmAogvLMg=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <v3mq9j$chc3$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 6044

Op 04.jun.2024 om 12:29 schreef Fred. Zwarts:
> Op 03.jun.2024 om 23:24 schreef olcott:
>> On 6/3/2024 3:09 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 03.jun.2024 om 14:20 schreef olcott:
>>>> On 6/3/2024 4:42 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> PO's D(D) halts, as illustrated in various traces that have been 
>>>>>> posted here.
>>>>>> PO's H(D,D) returns 0 : [NOT halting] also as illustrated in 
>>>>>> various traces.
>>>>>> i.e. exactly as the Linz proof claims.  PO has acknowledged both 
>>>>>> these
>>>>>> results.  Same for the HH/DD variants.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You might imagine that's the end of the matter - PO failed.  :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's right, but PO just carries on anyway!
>>>>>
>>>>> He has quite explicitly stated that false (0) is the correct result 
>>>>> for
>>>>> H(D,D) "even though D(D) halts".  I am mystified why anyone 
>>>>> continues to
>>>>> discuss the matter until he equally explicitly repudiates that claim.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Deciders only compute the mapping *from their inputs* to their own
>>>> accept or reject state. The correct emulation of the machine code input
>>>> to H(DD,DD) requires DD emulated by HH to emulate each x86 instruction
>>>> of the x86 machine code of DD correctly and in the correct order.
>>>>
>>>> *The input to HH(DD,DD) specifies non-halting behavior*
>>>>
>>>> The only way to cause DD emulated by HH to have the same behavior as
>>>> the directly executed (non input) DD(DD) is to emulate the instructions
>>>> specified by the machine code of DD incorrectly or in the incorrect
>>>> order. *This is not the behavior that the input to HH(DD,DD) specifies*
>>>>
>>>> The behavior of the directly executed DD(DD) has different behavior
>>>> than DD correctly emulated by HH. This is because the behavior of 
>>>> DD(DD)
>>>> reaps the benefits of HH having already aborted its simulation.
>>>>
>>>> No one ever noticed that these two behaviors could ever diverge before
>>>> because everyone rejected the notion of a simulating halt decider out-
>>>> of-hand without review.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Two PhD computer science professors that I have communicated with
>>>> agree with me that there is something wrong with the halting problem.
>>>>
>>>> Bill Stoddart. *The Halting Paradox*
>>>> 20 December 2017
>>>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
>>>> arXiv:1906.05340 [cs.LO]
>>>>
>>>> E C R Hehner. *Problems with the Halting Problem*, COMPUTING2011 
>>>> Symposium on 75 years of Turing Machine and Lambda-Calculus, 
>>>> Karlsruhe Germany, invited, 2011 October 20-21; Advances in Computer 
>>>> Science and Engineering v.10 n.1 p.31-60, 2013
>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf
>>>>
>>>> E C R Hehner. *Objective and Subjective Specifications*
>>>> WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford.  2018 July 18.
>>>> See https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Introduction to the Theory of Computation, by Michael Sipser*
>>>> https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation-Michael-Sipser/dp/113318779X/
>>>>
>>>> On 10/13/2022 11:29:23 AM
>>>> 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>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *DD correctly simulated by HH would never stop running unless aborted*
>>>> *We can see that the following DD cannot possibly halt when*
>>>> *correctly simulated by every HH that can possibly exist*
>>>
>>> It is very clear that if the simulated HH would halt, then DD would 
>>> halt. So your claim comes down to HH not halting when simulating itself.
>>>
>>
>> Mike Terry replied to this and explained it correctly
>> as reply directly to you
>> On 6/3/2024 12:36 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>
>> http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3CHlGdnbvc3Ly_YsD7nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d%40brightview.co.uk%3E
>>
> 
> He says that there is no infinite recursion, because the simulation is 
> aborted.
> If you want to interpret his reply in this way, then it also shows that 
> neither HH, nor DD are involved in a recursive recursion. This implies 

That should be: ... are involved in an infinite recursion, because the 
simulation was aborted, which implies ...

> that none of them reaches their final state. This, according to your own 
> words means, that it is correct to report that both are non-halting.