Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Ben thinks the professor Sipser is wrong
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2024 13:04:02 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <v66o6i$2rv8q$3@dont-email.me>
References: <tic5tr$25uem$6@dont-email.me> <8735bpq5jh.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2024 20:04:02 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8ec8ab09a9c087279b96ae2505557d8c";
	logging-data="3013914"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+JoDn9fNQ+T8D8IAyVeBzl"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:XuzxYJNhXJ3hgCACzUxVfSjKgyM=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <8735bpq5jh.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Bytes: 2278

<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>

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.
....
 > But H determines (correctly) that D would not halt if it were not
 > halted.  That much is a truism.

Ben clearly agrees that the above criteria have been met,
yet feels that professor Sipser was tricked into agreeing
that this means that:
     H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
     specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.

I spent two years deriving those words that Professor Sipser
agreed with. It seems to me that every software engineer would
agree that the second part is logically entailed by the first part.