Path: ...!news.nobody.at!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <abc@def.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Hypothetical possibilities --- Complete Proof
Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2024 22:56:58 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 277
Message-ID: <v8piib$g6tu$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v7gl30$3j9fi$1@dont-email.me> <v84udt$3rp4t$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8bc6j$159av$1@dont-email.me>
 <ea673a5b4ed43fbddf938c69bd013b0cf2ca325d@i2pn2.org>
 <v8c6kb$1de3l$1@dont-email.me>
 <9f3112e056ad6eebf35f940c34b802b46addcad4@i2pn2.org>
 <v8cde0$1ecgo$1@dont-email.me> <v8ctgt$1gbu7$4@dont-email.me>
 <v8dkc3$1kii7$3@dont-email.me> <v8e55v$1nrnh$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8e9vu$1oqd7$1@dont-email.me> <v8fftq$22ege$3@dont-email.me>
 <v8fuj5$24rl1$10@dont-email.me> <v8g1j7$24u77$6@dont-email.me>
 <v8g2jl$26d7d$1@dont-email.me> <v8ibf5$2p7ho$1@dont-email.me>
 <s3CdnbweXt8ohDD7nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <a287d1fc2c1fc90d4381e46eae05287b96e801b9@i2pn2.org>
 <-Vednah5VvbtwTD7nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <87frrmczso.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <AZSdncJX-q4WGDD7nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <87zfprbsvi.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2024 05:57:00 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="52fde5669d3710f02f2e95e8c7e2d14c";
	logging-data="531390"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1917OIdWzwLfOdRCUzD8eYv"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:f/hiIWP2ZSl4iBUmNDA23MqKTvc=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <87zfprbsvi.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Bytes: 13614

On 8/4/2024 9:33 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:
> 
>> On 02/08/2024 23:42, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Of course these traces don't support PO's overall case he is claiming,
>>>> because the (various) logs show that DDD halts, and that HHH(DDD) reports
>>>> DDD as non-halting, exactly as Linz/Sipser argue. Er, that's about it!
>>> PO certainly used to claim that false (non-halting) is the correct
>>> result "even though DDD halts" (I've edited the quote to reflect a name
>>> change).  Unless he's changed this position, the traces do support his
>>> claim that what everyone else calls the wrong answer is actually the
>>> right one.
>>
>> So, in your opinion, what do you believe is PO's criterion for "correct
>> result", exactly?  It would be handy if you can give a proper mathematical
>> definition so nobody will have any doubt what it is. Hey, I know you're
>> more than capable of getting a definition right, so let's have that
>> definition!
> 
> You are joking right?
> 
> PO has no idea what he's talking about.  I mean that more literally than
> you might think.  The starting point is a gut feeling ("If God can not
> solve the Halting Problem, then there is something wrong with the
> problem") shored up by a basic axiom 

The equivalent paraphrase of this has always been:
The inability to do the logically impossible places
no actual limit on computation.

https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
Professor Hehner and I perfectly agree on this
and he agrees that it is an accurate summary
of the result of his above paper.

*I humbly apologize for my harsh words to you*
A stranger that I met last night convinced me that I
should love my enemies. I have no enemies yet can refrain
from ever using harsh words towards my adversaries.

-- that PO is never wrong.  This

Never meant that at all ever. I have always been
fully aware that I make many mistakes every day.

> produces a endless sequence of nonsense statements, like
> 
>    "the fact that a computation halts does not entail that it is a
>    halting computation" [May 2021]
> 
>    "The fact [that] a computation stops running does not prove that it
>    halts" [Apr 2021]
> 
> and
> 
>    "The same halt decider can have different behavior on the same input"
>    [Jan 2021]
> 

That does sound stupid.
*As far as effective communication goes I am somewhat of a moron*

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}

*Here is a better way to phrase what I have been saying*
DDD correctly emulated by any HHH that can possibly
exist never reaches its "return" instruction halt state.

>> Definition:  A TM P given input I is said to "halt" iff ?????
>>               or whatever...
> 
> Do you really think I can fathom what PO considers to be the "correct
> result" in formal terms?  He certainly doesn't know (in general) and I
> can't even hazard a guess.
> 

HHH computes the mapping from the finite string of the x86
machine code of DDD to to the above specified behavior.

>> It's easy enough to say "PO has his own criterion for halting, which is
>> materially different from the HP condition, and so we all agree PO is
>> correct by his own criterion, but that does not say anything about the HP
>> theorem because it is different from the HP definition".
> 
> He's been very, very clear about this:
> 
>    "A non-halting computation is every computation that never halts
>    unless its simulation is aborted.  This maps to every element of the
>    conventional halting problem set of non-halting computations and a few
>    more."
> 

<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>

You have agreed that the first part of that has been met showing
that your understanding has always been better than anyone else.

> There is something called the "conventional halting problem" and then
> there is there is the PO-halting problem.
> 

The conventional halting problem has the implied false assumption
that a decider must report on the behavior of the computation that 
contains itself rather than computing the mapping from its finite
string input to the behavior that this finite string specifies.

> He's even explained in detail at least one of these "few more" cases.
> He sketched the simulator and explained that false (non-halting) is
> correct because of what would happen if line 15 (the check for "needs to
> be aborted") were commented out.  The "few more" cases are halting
> computations that would not halt if the code where a bit different -- if
> the "decider" did not stop the simulation.
> 

My above example is as simple as I can possibly make it.

That is a far cry from the x86 assembly language trace that
I discussed extensively with the former editor in chief of
CASM Professor Moshe Vardi. He eventually gave up because
he did not understand the x86 language.

> That was in 2020.  The last four years have all been about fleshing out
> this sketch of a decider for this "other" halting condition.  I am
> staggered that people are still talking about it.  Until he repudiates
> the claim that false is the correct answer for some halting
> computations, there is nothing more to discuss.
> 

I explained it much better above in terms of DDD emulated by HHH.

>> But is that /really/ something PO agrees with?
> 
> Does he really agree with what he said?  Does he agree that there is
> "the conventional halting problem" and also his own non-halting that
> includes "a few more" computations?  Does he agree with himself when he
> stated, in Oct 2021, that "Yes that is the correct answer even though
> P(P) halts" when asked "do you still assert that H(P,P) == false is the
> "correct" answer even though P(P) halts?"?
> 
>> I don't think so somehow,
>> because I'm pretty sure PO believes his claim "refutes" the HP result.
> 
> I am sure he still agrees with what he has said, and I am equally sure
> he still thinks he has refuted a theorem about something else.  He,
> literally, has no idea what he is talking about.
> 

You are the only one that understood that the first half of the
Sipser approved criteria has been met.

>> He
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========