Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connectionsPath: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Mike my best reviewer Date: Sat, 17 May 2025 15:05:36 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 145 Message-ID: <100aq6g$i785$2@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> <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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 17 May 2025 22:05:37 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6ea8251727358be87ec7627194d1f4d0"; logging-data="597253"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+FbT4Wydwf1UbaFI8UoBBo" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:0sptRDxFSTn1mA9mGVYrjZnEzOU= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <6b21dc04df76f0c91517919081b83705a3aeb359@i2pn2.org> X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250517-6, 5/17/2025), Outbound message On 5/17/2025 2:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/17/25 11:31 AM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/17/2025 9:27 AM, Mike Terry wrote: >>> On 17/05/2025 09:55, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2025-05-16 14:47:39 +0000, olcott said: >>>> >>>>> On 5/16/2025 4:26 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 2025-05-15 00:36:21 +0000, Mike Terry said: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 14/05/2025 22:31, Keith Thompson wrote: >>>>>>>> olcott writes: >>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2025 3:51 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2025 11:45 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2025 6:20 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> And since the DD that HHH is simulating WILL HALT when fully >>>>>>>>>>>> simulated (an action that HHH doesn't do) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *NOT IN THE ACTUAL SPEC* >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That Sipser didn't agree what you think the above means: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If that was actually true then you could provide an >>>>>>>>> alternative meaning for the exact words stated above. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I keep challenging you to provide this alternative >>>>>>>>> meaning and you dodge because you know that you are >>>>>>>>> lying about there being any alternative meaning >>>>>>>>> FOR THE EXACT WORDS LISTED ABOVE. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No alternative meaning is needed, just a correct interpretation >>>>>>>> of the >>>>>>>> words (which appear to be incomplete). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The quoted sentence is cut off, something that I suspect you didn't >>>>>>>> notice.  Here's the full quotation from a previous article: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that the following >>>>>>>>>> verbatim >>>>>>>>>> paragraph is correct (he has not agreed to anything else in this >>>>>>>>>> paper): >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> **If** H correctly simulates its input in the manner you claim, >>>>>>>> **then** H can correctly report the halting status of D.  (That's a >>>>>>>> paraphrase that probably doesn't capture the full meaning; the full >>>>>>>> **quotation is above.) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> To put it another way, If H correctly simulated its input in >>>>>>>> the manner you claim, then H could correctly report the halting >>>>>>>> status of D. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'm not surprised that Sipser would agree to that.  The problem is >>>>>>>> that it's a conditional statement whose premise is impossible. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If an equilateral triangle had four sides, then each of its four >>>>>>>> vertices would be 90 degrees.  That doesn't actually mean that >>>>>>>> there exists an equilateral triangle with four 90-degree vertices, >>>>>>>> and in fact no such triangle exists.  Similarly, *if* a general >>>>>>>> halt decider existed, then there are a lot of things we could say >>>>>>>> about it -- but no general halt decider can exist. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'm not quite 100% confident in my reasoning here.  I invite any >>>>>>>> actual experts in computational theory (not you, PO) to criticize >>>>>>>> what I've written. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I doubt that Sipser would be using your interpretation, relying >>>>>>> on a false premise as a clever kind of logical loop-hole to >>>>>>> basically fob someone off. >>>>>> >>>>>> The details of H are not known to Sipser, so he can't know whether a >>>>>> premise is false. It is possible that some simulating partial decider >>>>>> correctly simulates a part of the behaviour of some D and correctly >>>>>> determines that the unsimulated part of the behaviour never halts; >>>>>> for example, if the unsimulated part is a trivial eternal loop. That >>>>>> one premise is false about HHH with DDD is a part of what was asked. >>>>> >>>>> Mike explains all of the details of exactly how a >>>>> correct Simulating Halt Decider is derived from >>>>> the exact meaning of the words that professor Sipser >>>>> agreed to IN THE PART THAT YOU IGNORED >>>> >>>> No, he does not. He does not even believe that it is possible to derive >>>> a correct Simulating Halt Decider form the exact meaning of any words. >>>> >>> >>> That's correct. >>> >>> We could build a correct /partial/ SHD though, which I explained. >>> The idea behind an PSHD is ok, and a class of HP inputs could be >>> correctly decided with a PSHD.  Obviously a PSHD H could not decide >>> its corresponding H^ input, as the Linz HP proof implies.  Since PO's >>> HHH / does/ decide its corresponding DD (incorrectly), it is not a >>> PSHD, since PSHDs are not allowed to decide incorrectly.  [A >>> correctly coded PSHD HHH would never halt when given its (HHH^,HHH^) >>> input. >>> >>> PO's problem is that he misunderstands the entire context of Sipser's >>> words.  Sipser's words concern how a PSHD H could decide some FIXED >>> INPUT D it has been given. >> >> 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. > > And he still points out how you are wrong. > >> >> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c >> >> Most everyone else only seems to care about rebuttal >> at the expense of truth. Keith and Ben also seem to >> care about truth. > > No, rebuttal for the SAKE of truth. > >> >> >>      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 > > Right, ans since your HHH and DDD are not programs I will not tolerate changing the subject you damned liar! -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer