Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Mike Terry Proves --- How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met Date: Sun, 18 May 2025 15:03:07 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 224 Message-ID: <100dedr$15dil$3@dont-email.me> References: <1005jsk$3akrk$1@dont-email.me> <1005u6v$3cpt2$1@dont-email.me> <1006oi9$3l93f$1@dont-email.me> <1007kan$3qb7l$8@dont-email.me> <1009n2d$b9ol$1@dont-email.me> <100ag73$g1r8$1@dont-email.me> <100c83u$tspg$1@dont-email.me> <100ctuc$121rs$1@dont-email.me> <100d5b7$13m1e$1@dont-email.me> <221167c1bbedbbda1934b12f6b2c72de2c3a1f78@i2pn2.org> <100dckr$1586e$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 18 May 2025 22:03:08 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b5c72f95c645dee2c161954842d261f0"; logging-data="1226325"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/WbFiyLo+c7EpHxpN+3PEG" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:wDSTySOYisqVwu/0VQxBtMtWt5M= X-Antivirus-Status: Clean In-Reply-To: X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250518-4, 5/18/2025), Outbound message Content-Language: en-US On 5/18/2025 2:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/18/25 3:32 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/18/2025 2:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 5/18/25 1:28 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 5/18/2025 10:21 AM, Mike Terry wrote: >>>>> On 18/05/2025 10:09, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 2025-05-17 17:15:14 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 5/17/2025 5:06 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2025-05-16 15:07:03 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 5/16/2025 2:13 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2025-05-15 23:43:27 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 5/15/2025 6:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/15/25 4:47 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> I overcome the proof of undecidability of the Halting >>>>>>>>>>>>> Problem in that the code that >>>>>>>>>>>>> "does the opposite of whatever value that HHH returns" >>>>>>>>>>>>> becomes unreachable to DD correctly simulated by HHH. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, only to youtr INCORRECTLY simuated by HHH. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> In other words you believe that professor Sipser >>>>>>>>>>> screwed up when he agreed with these exact 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. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 10/13/2022> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> One may indeed thik so. Or pehaps he knew what he was doing >>>>>>>>>> but cheated. >>>>>>>>>> To sincerely agree with you without extreme care is an error. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2025 7:36 PM, Mike Terry wrote: >>>>>>>>> > There is a natural (and correct) statement that Sipser >>>>>>>>> > is far more likely (I'd say) to have agreed to. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That is compatible with the idea that Sipser scewed up or cheated. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> > First you should understand the basic idea behind a >>>>>>>>> > "Simulating Halt Decider" (*SHD*) that /partially/ >>>>>>>>> > simulates its input, while observing each simulation >>>>>>>>> > step looking for certain halting/non-halting patterns >>>>>>>>> > in the simulation. A simple (working) example here >>>>>>>>> > is an input which goes into a tight loop. >>>>>>>>> (Mike says much more about this) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *Click here to get the whole article* >>>>>>>>> https://al.howardknight.net/? >>>>>>>>> STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3C1003cu5%242p3g1%241%40dont-email.me%3E >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Message-ID: <1003cu5$2p3g1$1@dont-email.me> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There he explains an error in your claim to meet the >>>>>>>> requirements that >>>>>>>> Professor Sipser agreed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> He also shows that your "In other words you believe that professor >>>>>>>> Sipser screwed up when he agreed with these exact words" is not >>>>>>>> supported by evidence (but that is quite obvious anyway). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *That is fully addressed in my reply to Mike* >>>>>>> On 5/17/2025 10:31 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> [How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly >>>>>>> met --- Mike my best reviewer] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Message-ID: <100aa5c$f19u$1@dont-email.me> >>>>>>> https://al.howardknight.net/? >>>>>>> STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3C100aa5c%24f19u%241%40dont-email.me%3E >>>>>> >>>>>> That page does not show all of the message. >>>>>> >>>>>> You say there: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Mike's reviews of my work are at least ten-fold better >>>>>>> than the next best reviewer. Mike is one of the few >>>>>>> people here that really wants an honest dialogue. He >>>>>>> carefully examined my code and has a nearly perfect >>>>>>> understanding. >>>>>> >>>>>> Mike and I agree about everything essential in these discussion, and >>>>>> I havn't noticed any disagreement is the less essential. >>>>>> >>>>>> Your statement "Mike is one of the few people here that really wants >>>>>> an honest dialogue" is far from true. Some peole may have a stronger >>>>>> desire to keep the discussion honest but there are not many who have >>>>>> any reason to want any dishonest discussion. Of course everyone's >>>>>> ability to keep the discussion honest is restricted to ones own >>>>>> contributions. >>>>>> >>>>>> You also say: >>>>>> >>>>>>> HHH(DDD) does not base its decision on the actual >>>>>>> behavior of DDD after it has aborted its simulation >>>>>>> of DDD, instead it bases its decision on a different >>>>>>> HHH/DDD pair that never aborts. >>>>>> >>>>>> This is why HHH does not satisfy "H correctly determines that its >>>>>> simulated D would never stop running unless aborted". If HHH bases >>>>>> its decision on anything else than what its actual input actually >>>>>> specifies it does not decide correctly. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Right. It seems to be a recent innovation in PO's wording that he >>>>> has started using the phrase "..bases its decision on a different >>>>> *HHH/DDD pair* ..". >>>>> >>>> >>>> On 5/14/2025 7:36 PM, Mike Terry wrote: >>>> we can easily interpret that as saying exactly what I said a SHD >>>> does above. It tells PO that in the tight loop example, H correctly >>>> simulates as far as [A], at which point it correctly determines that >>>> "its simulated input would never stop running unless aborted", so it >>>> can decide "non-halting". >>>> >>>> Thus SHD must report on a different SHD/Infinite_Loop pair >>>> where this hypothetical instance of itself never aborts. >>>> >>>> If H always reports on the behavior of its simulated >>>> input after it aborts then every input including >>>> infinite_loop would be determined to be halting. >>>> >>>> Instead H must report on the hypothetical H/D input >>>> pair where the very same H has been made to not abort >>>> its input. >>>> >>>> void DDD() >>>> { >>>> HHH(DDD); >>>> return; >>>> } >>>> >>>> _DDD() >>>> [00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping >>>> [00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping >>>> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD >>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD) >>>> [0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04 >>>> [00002182] 5d pop ebp >>>> [00002183] c3 ret >>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183] >>>> >>>> *H correctly determines that its simulated D* >>>> *would never stop running unless aborted* >>>> by a hypothetical instance of itself that never aborts. >>>> >>>> Unless HHH aborts its simulation of DDD then >>>> (a) The simulated DDD >>>> (b) The executed HHH() >>>> (c) The executed DDD() >>>> (d) Every function that HHH calls >>>> NEVER STOP RUNNING >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> The first problem is your DDD is just a category error, and NOTHING >>> (correct) can simulate this DDD past the call the HHH as that code >>> isn't in the input. ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========