Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met
Date: Tue, 13 May 2025 13:43:43 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 106
Message-ID: <vvv7ov$1p2n6$1@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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 13 May 2025 12:43:44 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="69576f0644f413b581cc430fda63c863";
	logging-data="1870566"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18SrFPatHkC9KZr90kiJE77"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:lMQrWnupam3g244GsHkwEAn5kAo=
Bytes: 5652

On 2025-05-12 22:41:43 +0000, olcott said:

> 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?

You have not proven that he is not wrong.

-- 
Mikko