Path: ...!news.misty.com!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Simulating termination analyzers by dummies --- criteria is met
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 10:22:27 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 93
Message-ID: <v5b6rj$qq4o$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v4oaqu$f9p5$1@dont-email.me> <v4qe53$a0nm$1@i2pn2.org> <v4qn65$10qh6$1@dont-email.me> <v4qnkf$a0nm$5@i2pn2.org> <v4qpvo$10qh6$2@dont-email.me> <v4qrmd$a0nm$6@i2pn2.org> <v4qrr8$15beg$1@dont-email.me> <v4qsav$a0nn$3@i2pn2.org> <v4qtaa$15gc5$1@dont-email.me> <v4qu3p$a0nm$7@i2pn2.org> <v4quti$15nn8$1@dont-email.me> <v4rrge$bivn$1@i2pn2.org> <v4s1l0$1boeu$6@dont-email.me> <v4seq5$cbcu$1@i2pn2.org> <v4sfuo$1enie$1@dont-email.me> <v4shpp$cbcu$2@i2pn2.org> <v4st0g$1hjnp$1@dont-email.me> <v4sull$2f03$1@news.muc.de> <v4svmn$1i267$1@dont-email.me> <v4u8cu$1o15$1@news.muc.de> <v4uoj9$1vpm0$10@dont-email.me> <v50ena$2ecrp$1@dont-email.me> <v50fcc$2efr5$1@dont-email.me> <v51gli$2kgr3$1@dont-email.me> <v51hgt$2kigj$1@dont-email.me> <v5393g$3286d$3@dont-email.me> <v53ul0$35vak$5@dont-email.me> <v560kp$3lqrq$2@dont-email.me> <v56i4t$3or0r$2@dont-email.me> <v56jfu$onl3$4@i2pn2.org> <v56m2g$3or0r$8@dont-email.me> <v58ki1$8e51$1@dont-email.me> <v59726$bko6$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 09:22:27 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="62f39bc232140074947695841fe82bc6";
	logging-data="878744"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/wKb6vdCcGijX/doT94wwZ"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:AVyVlNehXxE7dp4E/Dy3gr+IkIY=
Bytes: 5827

On 2024-06-23 13:13:42 +0000, olcott said:

> On 6/23/2024 2:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-06-22 14:11:28 +0000, olcott said:
>> 
>>> On 6/22/2024 8:27 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/22/24 9:04 AM, olcott wrote:
> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> I am the sole inventor of the simulating halt decider.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Ben Bacarisse contacted professor Sipser to verify that he
>>>>> really did says this. The details are in this forum about
>>>>> the same date.
>>>>> 
>>>>> https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation-Michael-Sipser/dp/113318779X/ 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> <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>
>>>> 
>>>> And, as I remember, he also verified that he disagrees with your 
>>>> definition of correct simulation.
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> *Ben also verified that the criteria have been met*
>>>>> On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>  > I don't think that is the shell game. PO really /has/ an H
>>>>>  > (it's trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines
>>>>>  > that P(P) *would* never stop running *unless* aborted.
>>>> 
>>>> Right, Ben was willing to do what I am not that you can prove that, by 
>>>> your definition, H can show that it "must" abort its simulation or the 
>>>> input will run forever.
>>>> 
>>>> But, just like me, he also agrees that this is NOT the defintion of 
>>>> Halting, so H is just shown to be a correct (partial) POOP decider but 
>>>> ot a Halt Decider, not even for that one input.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>  > I don't think that is the shell game. PO really /has/ an H
>>>  > (it's trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines
>>>  > that P(P) *would* never stop running *unless* aborted.
>>>  >
>>>  > He knows and accepts that P(P) actually does stop. The
>>>  > wrong answer is justified by what would happen if H
>>>  > (and hence a different P) where not what they actually are.
>>>  >
>>> *Ben agrees that the criteria is met for the input*
>>> 
>>> Computable functions are the formalized analogue of the
>>> intuitive notion of algorithms, in the sense that a function
>>> is computable if there exists an algorithm that can do the
>>> job of the function, i.e. *given an input of the function*
>>> *domain it can return the corresponding output*
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function
>>> 
>>> *Ben disagrees that the criteria is met for the non-input*
>>> Yet no one here can stay focused on the fact that non-inputs
>>> *DO NOT COUNT*
>> 
>> In particular, you can't. You have insisted that your "decider"
>> or "anlyzer" (or whatever word you happen to use) H or HH (or
>> hwatever name you happen to use) must return false because a
>> non-input (where instead of the actually called function another
>> function that does not halt is called) does not halt.
>> 
> 
> You said it backwards. When I say that I am not guilty and did
> not rob the liquor store you cannot paraphrase this as he admitted
> that he robbed the liquor store.

The important qestion is not whether you admit but what the police
finds out.

> H performs a sequence of finite string transformations on
> its finite input of x86 machine code. These transformations
> include that D calls H(D,D) while being simulated by H. In
> such a case the call from D to H(D,D) cannot possibly return.

Which is all we need to know about H in ordet to determine that
it is not a decider.

-- 
Mikko