Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: dbush Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH Date: Tue, 13 May 2025 22:50:58 -0400 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 152 Message-ID: <10010eh$24gr3$16@dont-email.me> References:

<1000dlc$21dtc$5@dont-email.me> <1000qdb$24gr3$4@dont-email.me> <1000rir$24jh0$3@dont-email.me> <1000rqc$24gr3$7@dont-email.me> <1000son$24sr2$3@dont-email.me> <1000t4d$24gr3$10@dont-email.me> <1000tap$24sr2$6@dont-email.me> <1000te4$24gr3$13@dont-email.me> <1001076$29e7u$3@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Wed, 14 May 2025 04:50:57 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="aa4573950805358eaedd8b0785eca37f"; logging-data="2245475"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/XZyGm3SujJUTAdCXGgw1Y" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:5E4wmqqTfnMlHKKrSmh9oEOx5Uc= In-Reply-To: <1001076$29e7u$3@dont-email.me> Content-Language: en-US On 5/13/2025 10:47 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/13/2025 8:59 PM, dbush wrote: >> On 5/13/2025 9:57 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/13/2025 8:54 PM, dbush wrote: >>>> On 5/13/2025 9:48 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 5/13/2025 8:31 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>> On 5/13/2025 9:27 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/13/2025 8:07 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/13/2025 5:30 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2025 6:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/25 12:52 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/2025 11:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/25 10:53 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/2025 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/25 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: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> words 10/13/2022> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which your H doesn't do, as it can not correctly determine >>>>>>>>>>>>>> what doesn't happen. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Any C programmer can correctly tell what doesn't happen. >>>>>>>>>>>>> What doesn't happen is DD reaching its "return" statement >>>>>>>>>>>>> final halt state. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Sure they can, since that is the truth, as explained. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Since your "logic" is based on lies and equivocation, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If my logic was based on lies and equivocation >>>>>>>>>>> then you could provide actual reasoning that >>>>>>>>>>> corrects my errors. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I hae. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It is truism that simulating termination analyzers >>>>>>>>>>> must report on the behavior of their input as if >>>>>>>>>>> they themselves never aborted this simulation: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Right, of the input actually given to them, which must include >>>>>>>>>> all their code, and that code is what is actually there, not >>>>>>>>>> created by this imaginary operation. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In other words every single byte of HHH and DD are >>>>>>>>> 100% totally identical except the hypothetical HHH >>>>>>>>> has its abort code commented out. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In other words you changed the input. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Changing the input is not allowed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thus, a HHH that aborts to return an answer, when looking at >>>>>>>>>> the DDD that calls it, must look at the unaborted emulation of >>>>>>>>>> THAT DDD, that calls the HHH that DOES abort and return an >>>>>>>>>> answer, as that is what the PROGRAM DDD is, If you can not >>>>>>>>>> create the HHH that does that without changing that input, >>>>>>>>>> that is a flaw in your system, not the problem. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *simulated D would never stop running unless aborted* >>>>>>>>>>> or they themselves could become non-terminating. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> But you aren't simulating the same PROGRAM D that the original >>>>>>>>>> was given. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It is not supposed to be the same program. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So you *explicitly* admit to changing the input. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The finite string of DD is specific sequence bytes. >>>>>> >>>>>> Which includes the specific sequence of bytes that is the finite >>>>>> string HHH >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> No it does not. A function calls is not macro inclusion. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Then you admit that your HHH not deciding about algorithms and >>>> therefore has nothing to do with the halting problem. >>>> >>>>>>> The finite string of HHH is specific sequence bytes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The hypothetical HHH that does not abort its input >>>>>>> cannot have input that has changed because it never >>>>>>> comes into actual existence. >>>>>> >>>>>> But your HHH decides on that hypothetical non-input. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The whole point here is not to critique the words >>>>> that professor Sipser agreed to. >>>>> >>>>> The whole point here is to determine whether or >>>>> not HHH meets this spec. It is a verified fact >>>>> that it does meet this spec. >>>> >>>> But since you just admitted that your HHH is not deciding on >>>> algorithms, >>> >>> That is a dishonest change of subject. >>> That HHH is doing eactly what the spec requires >>> is the whole purpose of this post. >>> >> >> And since that spec is not working on algorithms, > > The spec does not mention algorithms Meaning what you're doing has nothing to do with the halting problem. If you're just honest about that fact people will stop bothering you.