Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Every sufficiently competent C programmer knows --- Paraphrase of
 Sipser's agreement
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2025 11:32:23 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 163
Message-ID: <vr6qu6$21k0t$3@dont-email.me>
References: <vqntaq$1jut5$1@dont-email.me> <vqp388$1tvqa$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqpdv9$202b2$2@dont-email.me> <vqperb$20c9k$2@dont-email.me>
 <E6mcnWv3nMa66036nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <vqpv2u$23vhr$1@dont-email.me>
 <Ny-dnRlMHcVpA036nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <vqrjrn$2h4l2$1@dont-email.me>
 <nESdnUfJxdhoTkz6nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <vqsl7c$2ok91$1@dont-email.me>
 <f7b6995ae3e79db00fa5070d9be8126b7ea5ae78@i2pn2.org>
 <vqt99l$2spcd$5@dont-email.me> <vqu84v$363tm$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqvgpn$3s1qt$4@dont-email.me> <vr0rcu$10780$1@dont-email.me>
 <vr1f32$1ev1a$4@dont-email.me> <vr3jpq$3abnf$1@dont-email.me>
 <vr4rb6$bkso$1@dont-email.me>
 <1571d378add9779a0986b4df903964c7241f94a7@i2pn2.org>
 <vr6pc5$1udpn$6@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2025 16:32:23 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="67c63d6f95dcce4899f1b1432e20e56d";
	logging-data="2150429"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19y/y1C3GyTEVc+PNSL6V0a"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:p3MRGZXmbDm1+r2f3XJz68BrV9U=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vr6pc5$1udpn$6@dont-email.me>

On 3/16/2025 11:05 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/16/2025 7:31 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Sat, 15 Mar 2025 16:27:00 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 3/15/2025 5:12 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2025-03-14 14:39:30 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>> On 3/14/2025 4:03 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-03-13 20:56:22 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>> On 3/13/2025 4:22 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2025-03-13 00:36:04 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>     HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>>     return;
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>> int DD()
>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>     int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>>>>>>>     if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>>>       HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>     return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When HHH correctly emulates N steps of the above functions none of
>>>>>>>>> them can possibly reach their own "return" instruction and
>>>>>>>>> terminate normally.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nevertheless, assuming HHH is a decider, Infinite_Loop and
>>>>>>>> Infinite_Recursion specify a non-terminating behaviour, DDD
>>>>>>>> specifies a terminating behaviour
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What is the sequence of machine language instructions of DDD
>>>>>>> emulated by HHH such that DDD reaches its machine address 00002183?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Irrelevant off-topic distraction.
>>>>>
>>>>> Proving that you don't have a clue that Rice's Theorem is anchored in
>>>>> the behavior that its finite string input specifies.
>>>>
>>>> Another irrelevant off-topic distraction, this time involving a false
>>>> claim.
>>>> One can be a competent C programmer without knowing anyting about
>>>> Rice's Theorem.
>>> YES.
>>>
>>>> Rice's Theorem is about semantic properties in general, not just
>>>> behaviours.
>>>> The unsolvability of the halting problem is just a special case.
>>>>
>>> Does THE INPUT TO simulating termination analyzer HHH encode a C
>>> function that reaches its "return"
>>> instruction [WHEN SIMULATED BY HHH] (The definition of simulating
>>> termination analyzer) ???
> 
>> That can't be right. Otherwise my simulator could just not simulate
>> at all and say that no input halts.
>>
> 
> Originally a "decider" was any TM that always stops
> running for any reason.
> 
> In computability theory, a decider is a Turing
> machine that halts for every input.[1]
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decider_(Turing_machine)
> 
>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>> key word "correctly"
>>
> 
> *I anchored what correct emulation means now*
> 
> <Accurate Paraphrase>
> If emulating termination analyzer H emulates its input
> finite string D of x86 machine language instructions
> according to the semantics of the x86 programming language
> until H correctly determines that this emulated D cannot
> possibly reach its own "ret" instruction in any finite
> number of correctly emulated steps then
> 
> H can abort its emulation of input D and correctly report
> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
> </Accurate Paraphrase>
> 
> 


Nope:


On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 2:41:27 PM UTC-5, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
 > Fritz Feldhase <franz.fri...@gmail.com> writes:
 >
 > > On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 3:56:52 AM UTC+1, olcott wrote:
 > >> On 3/5/2023 8:33 PM, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
 > >> > On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 3:30:38 AM UTC+1, olcott wrote:
 > >> > >
 > >> > > I needed Sipser for people [bla]
 > >> > >
 > >> > Does Sipser support your view/claim that you have refuted the 
halting theorem?
 > >> >
 > >> > Does he write/teach that the halting theorem is invalid?
 > >> >
 > >> > Tell us, oh genius!
 > >> >
 > >> Professor Sipser only agreed that [...]
 > >
 > > So the answer is no. Noted.
 > >
 > >> Because he has >250 students he did not have time to examine anything
 > >> else. [...]
 > >
 > > Oh, a CS professor does not have the time to check a refutation of the
 > > halting theorem. *lol*
 > I exchanged emails with him about this. He does not agree with anything
 > substantive that PO has written. I won't quote him, as I don't have
 > permission, but he was, let's say... forthright, in his reply to me.
 >


On 8/23/2024 5:07 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
 > joes <noreply@example.org> writes:
 >
 >> Am Wed, 21 Aug 2024 20:55:52 -0500 schrieb olcott:
 >
 >>> Professor Sipser clearly agreed that an H that does a finite simulation
 >>> of D is to predict the behavior of an unlimited simulation of D.
 >>
 >> If the simulator *itself* would not abort. The H called by D is,
 >> by construction, the same and *does* abort.
 >
 > We don't really know what context Sipser was given.  I got in touch at
 > the time so do I know he had enough context to know that PO's ideas were
 > "wacky" and that had agreed to what he considered a "minor remark".
 >
 > Since PO considers his words finely crafted and key to his so-called
 > work I think it's clear that Sipser did not take the "minor remark" he
 > agreed to to mean what PO takes it to mean!  My own take if that he
 > (Sipser) read it as a general remark about how to determine some cases,
 > i.e. that D names an input that H can partially simulate to determine
 > it's halting or otherwise.  We all know or could construct some such
 > cases.
 >
 > I suspect he was tricked because PO used H and D as the names without
 > making it clear that D was constructed from H in the usual way (Sipser
 > uses H and D in at least one of his proofs).  Of course, he is clued in
 > enough know that, if D is indeed constructed from H like that, the
 > "minor remark" becomes true by being a hypothetical: if the moon is made
 > of cheese, the Martians can look forward to a fine fondue.  But,
 > personally, I think the professor is more straight talking than that,
 > and he simply took as a method that can work for some inputs.  That's
 > the only way is could be seen as a "minor remark" with being accused of
 > being disingenuous.


On 8/23/2024 9:10 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
 > So that PO will have no cause to quote me as supporting his case:  what
 > Sipser understood he was agreeing to was NOT what PO interprets it as
 > meaning.  Sipser would not agree that the conclusion applies in PO's
 > HHH(DDD) scenario, where DDD halts.