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 23:36:56 -0400 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 194 Message-ID: <100134n$24gr3$19@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> <10010eh$24gr3$16@dont-email.me> <10012fs$29e7u$6@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 05:36:56 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="aa4573950805358eaedd8b0785eca37f"; logging-data="2245475"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18qO0xEtK1viD8mnzZOL4rn" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:qA0b3RwAtQWV5A5gt4PArRWzQBc= In-Reply-To: <10012fs$29e7u$6@dont-email.me> Content-Language: en-US On 5/13/2025 11:25 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/13/2025 9:50 PM, dbush wrote: >> 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: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >> > > That is not the subject of this post. > We are ONLY discussing how HHH meets the spec. > It doesn't matter whether or not HHH meets the spec if it has nothing to do with the halting problem, as you've admitted: On 5/13/2025 9:54 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: ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========