Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly
 met
Date: Mon, 12 May 2025 19:40:01 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 154
Message-ID: <vvu0si$1c062$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vvte01$14pca$29@dont-email.me> <vvte62$15ceh$18@dont-email.me>
 <vvtej1$181kg$1@dont-email.me> <vvtjj8$15ceh$19@dont-email.me>
 <vvtl1g$19cvp$1@dont-email.me> <vvtlmm$15ceh$20@dont-email.me>
 <vvto7c$1a1pf$1@dont-email.me> <vvtpqu$1agqu$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvtq8d$1a1pf$2@dont-email.me> <vvtqn1$1agqu$2@dont-email.me>
 <vvtsmf$1aube$1@dont-email.me> <vvtsq5$1agqu$3@dont-email.me>
 <vvttf7$1bfib$1@dont-email.me> <vvu008$1c062$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvu0mm$1c0vi$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 13 May 2025 01:40:02 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="525f3751cca56668838a1ae1f1e0ddfb";
	logging-data="1441986"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+7Ebyf+sca1IwEnvqs1xtS"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:wknTsw2JIaJNoNzWzJokH1s6o+I=
In-Reply-To: <vvu0mm$1c0vi$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US

On 5/12/2025 7:36 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/12/2025 6:24 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 5/12/2025 6:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/12/2025 5:30 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 5/12/2025 6:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/12/2025 4:54 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/12/2025 5:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/12/2025 4:39 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/12/2025 5:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/2025 3:29 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/2025 4:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/2025 2:53 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/2025 2:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/2025 1:20 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/2025 2:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Introduction to the Theory of Computation 3rd Edition
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by Michael Sipser (Author)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4.4 out of 5 stars    568 rating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation- 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael- Sipser/ dp/113318779X
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int DD()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DD correctly simulated by any pure simulator
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> named HHH cannot possibly terminate thus proving
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that this criteria has been met:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <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>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which is not what you thought he agreed to:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 2:41:27 PM UTC-5, Ben 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Ben already acknowledged that the requirements have been met*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 10:23 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > ...D(D) would not halt unless H stops the simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion (in 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this one case)...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Which is not what Sipser agreed to, as stated above.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> He agreed, as all others would, that H must determine if 
>>>>>>>>>>>> UTM(D) halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That is not what Ben's words mean.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 
>>>>>>>>>>> 10/13/2022>
>>>>>>>>>>>      H correctly determines that its simulated D
>>>>>>>>>>>      would never stop running unless aborted...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *its simulated D*
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Which Sipser (and everyone else) takes to mean UTM(D), 
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *its simulated D* cannot be *correctly* understood
>>>>>>>>> to mean a D simulated by anything else other than
>>>>>>>>> a hypothetical H that never aborts.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> False.  It cannot be *correctly* understood to be anything else 
>>>>>>>> but the algorithm D simulated completely by a UTM, 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> An H that never aborts <is> a UTM.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In which case you don't have algorithm D.  You instead have 
>>>>>> algorithm Dn.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *its simulated D would never stop running unless aborted*
>>>>> can only mean one thing.
>>>>
>>>> And what it means is changing the input.
>>>>
>>>> Changing the input is not allowed.
>>>
>>> So professor Sisper was wrong?
>>>
>>
>> He didn't agree to what you think he did:
>>
>> On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 2:41:27 PM UTC-5, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>  > 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:
>>  > 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.
>>
> 
> This can only have one meaning:
> *its simulated D would never stop running unless aborted*

And that meaning is "changing the input"

Changing the input is not allowed.