Path: ...!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: Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2024 14:07:57 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 93
Message-ID: <vc7bad$2aodk$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vc6qlc$275or$1@dont-email.me>
 <bf2621f4b0a05cb076c7fa88222f245b7753a1c3@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2024 21:07:58 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c64244628d7897ab0f159183017b0d46";
	logging-data="2449844"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/MY6oTY9+cNt1su68QKQlP"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:F8hHKasg4g5SRkMqHZHzAAXfPr0=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <bf2621f4b0a05cb076c7fa88222f245b7753a1c3@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 5053

On 9/15/2024 11:55 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 9/15/24 10:23 AM, olcott wrote:
>>
>> Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof
>> D(D) correctly reports its own halt status
>>
>> https://www.researchgate.net/ 
>> publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof
>>
> 
> Nope, just proves you are a stupid ignorant liar that doesn't know what 
> he is talking about.
> 
> First, you title is incorrect, as it isn't "D" that needs to report its 
> halt status, but the "H" that "D" Calls.
> 
> Remember, in the problem H is, and only is, the machine that H is, and D 
> is, and only is, the machine that D is, as the code in the problem 
> presents.
> 
> 
> Remember, you have been tole (but ignore) that the phrase:
> 
> until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop 
> running unless aborted
> 
> Means that a CORRECT UNABORTED SIMULATION of *THIS* D would not stop, 

unless aborted, Therefore giving H is criterion measure.

<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

> but *THIS* D calls *THIS* H, which you admit *WILL* decide to abort (and 
> thus its simulation is not the "correct simulation" we are to look at).
> 
> Since THIS H does return to its caller, since it DOES abort, this means 
> that the correct simulation of this D will halt, and thus this H never 
> got the "authorization" to abort, but did so anyway and introduced its 
> error into the system.
> 
> Note, when you say:
> 
> When H correctly simulates D it finds that D remains stuck in recursive 
> simulation
> Line 13: main() invokes D(D)
> Line 06: Invoked D calls H that simulates D(D)
> Line 06: Simulated D calls simulated H that simulates D(D) (repeats 
> until aborted)
> 
> Simulation Invariant: D simulated by H never reaches Line 07 or Line 08.
> 
> We note that the first line is incorrect, as H DOESN'T correctly 
> simulate D, as it DOES abort, and that the "repeats until aborted" talks 
> about a condition that DOES happen, so if we look at the actual CORRECT 
> simulation of D, we see that main invokes D(D) that calls H(D,D) that 
> simulates its copy of D(D) for some time an then aborts that simulation 
> and returns to D which returns to main, and thus halts.
> 
> Thus, your "Simulation Invariant" is just a LIE.
> 
> Of course, that is because you stupidly keep on confusing the behavior 
> of D (simulated by H) with the behavior of the simulation of D by H.
> 
> You seem to do this because you, in your ignorance, can't keep track of 
> the difference between the TRUTH of the behavior of *THIS* D (the D that 
> calls the H that simulates it for a while and then aborts and returns) 
> with the knowledge that H gets by its PARTIAL simulation of its input D, 
> and the behavior of a totally different program D (with the same code in 
> the C functions D, but calling a different function H, with different 
> behavior).
> 
> These errors have been pointed out to you MANY times, and your repeating 
> the error either says you are mentally incapable of learning facts, or 
> you are just so brainwashed by yourself with your lies that you just 
> refuse to accept the facts and thus make your self just a pathetic 
> ignorant pathologically lying idiot.
> 
> 
> Notd, at your end, you confuse the question, as you fill in the D / D 
> line with "Accept" even though this is supposed to be the mapping 
> function that H is computing, and BY YOUR ADMISSION, H REJECTED the input.
> 
> Thus, you prove with that final comment that you just don't understand 
> what you are talking about and are nothing but a LYING IDIOT.
> 


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