Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!border-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-4.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 12 May 2025 17:14:04 +0000 Date: Mon, 12 May 2025 12:14:03 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic References:

<87bkqg4n7v.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> Content-Language: en-US From: olcott In-Reply-To: <87bkqg4n7v.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250512-4, 5/12/2025), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Message-ID: <4R2dnb1_sKrBsb_1nZ2dnZfqlJ-dnZ2d@giganews.com> Lines: 78 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-Trace: sv3-NPuDDUUjcTaQNxwYghJybulDFkZUtiNdplSlOWR91byMmnoI3fNYUBHTxb3mGFBx6RxGIpg0I+NznxZ!B5Gbx7KozRXuu1xuHEH6VJnHdwyN6A8QWSbi/EuEQDFJtA3jgr63RlqOJlVhG/b5B5tSqriuadBF X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.40 On 10/12/2022 6:49 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: > olcott writes: >> On 10/12/2022 5:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 10/12/22 11:08 AM, olcott wrote: >>>> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim paragraph >>>> looks correct: >> >> >> Here is what I would like to say: >> >> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim paragraph >> looks correct: >> >> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation >> of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be >> correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D >> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations? >> >> This validates the idea of a simulating halt decider referenced in >> this paper. >> >> Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof >> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof >> >> Professor Sipser has not had the time to carefully review this paper >> presented to him. >> >> >> >> Looks ok. Thanks for checking. >> >> >>> IF I drop by and ask him face to face, will he confirm this? >> >> Yes. > > Would Professor Sipser agree that you have refuted his halting problem > proof? > > If I understand this correctly, it does not support the idea that a > general "simulating halt decider" can actually exist. > > In the above, let D be a program that may or may not halt, and let H be > an observer who attempts to determine whether or not D halts. > Concretely, let D be this C program or equivalent: > > int main(void) { while (1) { } } > > and I'll be H. I can observe D. I can simulate it until I get bored, > which won't take long (one iteration, two iterations, three iterations, > zzzzzzzzz). I can, while simulating it, conclude that it will never > halt, abort the simulation, and report that it never halts. It wouldn't > be difficult to automate the process in a way that works for this simple > case. > My scope is to prove that the "impossible" input to all the halting problem proofs decidable. Refuting the halting problem itself has never been in scope. int DD() { int Halt_Status = HHH(DD); if (Halt_Status) HERE: goto HERE; return Halt_Status; } HHH(DD) does correctly determine that its input DD would never stop running unless aborted. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer