Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Mike my best reviewer Date: Sun, 18 May 2025 07:20:41 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <7ed14c87457006df4db19366c2991791c8db0737@i2pn2.org> 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> <7947826fb84c9c8db49c392b305d395c3669907f@i2pn2.org> <1002dre$2i4bk$14@dont-email.me> <1002vp2$2mbr6$3@dont-email.me> <10030c3$2mivc$3@dont-email.me> <87h61mang3.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <1003cu5$2p3g1$1@dont-email.me> <10070cl$3mmus$1@dont-email.me> <1007j6b$3qb7l$2@dont-email.me> <1009iu4$agi7$1@dont-email.me> <100a6d9$e80n$1@dont-email.me> <100aa5c$f19u$1@dont-email.me> <6b21dc04df76f0c91517919081b83705a3aeb359@i2pn2.org> <100aq6g$i785$2@dont-email.me> <100aqqj$i8i0$1@dont-email.me> <4637d932171b8e508e2e937883627ace67a37878@i2pn2.org> <100atdg$ilsf$1@dont-email.me> <68ba33506c9c85de8f7ba9f43a5e56dd0565144e@i2pn2.org> <100b7ut$khnq$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 18 May 2025 11:20:58 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="873321"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <100b7ut$khnq$1@dont-email.me> On 5/17/25 8:00 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/17/2025 6:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 5/17/25 5:00 PM, olcott wrote: >>> >>> That its correct criterion measure and Mike >>> uses this same criterion measure on his infinite >>> loop example. >> >> But it only does a correct simulation if it doesn't abort its simulation. >> >> PERIOD. >> >>> >>> On 5/14/2025 7:36 PM, Mike Terry wrote: >>> https://al.howardknight.net/? >>> STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3C1003cu5%242p3g1%241%40dont-email.me%3E >>> >>> 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". >>> >>> H is not reporting on actual the behavior of H(D) >>> that halts after D has been aborted. >> >> It isn't? Then it isn't a Halt Decider. >> > > Mike said it is a correct partial halt decider > when his SHD simulates an infinite loop and then > reports on the behavior of what would happen > if this SHD did not abort its simulation. But "Partial Halt Deciders" are not "Halt Deciders". Also, Mike's decider determine the actual behavior that a correct simulation would see, it would be infinite. > > Thus Mike says that the SHD should not report > on the actual behavior of SHD/infinite loop > that does abort its input. Sure he did, as that is what the SHD determined about the input. It is possible, in some cases, to determine after a finite number of simulation steps, that an infinite number of simulation steps will not halt. THe problem is that when DDD is made into the full program that it needs to be to be asked about, by includeing the code of THE HHH that gives the claimed right answer because it aborts and returns 0, we see that the CORRECT simulation of this input, which HHH doesn't do, will halt. THus HHH could not have correctly determined that it doesn't. > > If you can't pay attention to these details about > what Mike said because of your ADD how is your > performance at work? Does anyone at work notice > that you can't keep focus on a single point? > It seems the problem is in YOUR seeing the details, as you miss so many, largle from your ignorance of what the words mean, and you taking your own lies as more believable than the truth.