Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Mike Terry Proves --- How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met Date: Thu, 22 May 2025 20:05:27 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <1eca611e549d56bbe656a860b9015dc500520f90@i2pn2.org> 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> <100dbpt$14tvf$2@dont-email.me> <100f06a$1ije7$1@dont-email.me> <100gvce$22oen$1@dont-email.me> <100h9a5$24gpu$1@dont-email.me> <100i37l$292ko$1@dont-email.me> <100ifg1$2bf5g$2@dont-email.me> <100k1h4$2o767$1@dont-email.me> <100ks7p$2tae8$2@dont-email.me> <100mm4r$3caok$1@dont-email.me> <100o98h$3md6k$4@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Fri, 23 May 2025 00:05:39 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="1515406"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 In-Reply-To: <100o98h$3md6k$4@dont-email.me> On 5/22/25 6:42 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/22/2025 3:10 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2025-05-21 15:41:45 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> On 5/21/2025 3:05 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2025-05-20 18:31:01 +0000, Mr Flibble said: >>>> >>>>> On Tue, 20 May 2025 19:51:59 +0200, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Op 20.mei.2025 om 16:22 schreef olcott: >>>>>>> On 5/20/2025 2:00 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2025-05-20 04:10:54 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 5/19/2025 5:12 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2025-05-18 19:18:21 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 5/18/2025 2:08 PM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Am Sun, 18 May 2025 12:28:05 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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* ..". >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus SHD must report on a different SHD/Infinite_Loop pair >>>>>>>>>>>>> where >>>>>>>>>>>>> this hypothetical instance of itself never aborts. >>>>>>>>>>>> This, the simulator. The input still calls the same real >>>>>>>>>>>> aborting >>>>>>>>>>>> HHH. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, that is why H is wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead H must report on the hypothetical H/D input pair where >>>>>>>>>>>>> the very same H has been made to not abort its input. >>>>>>>>>>>> Just no. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> *H correctly determines that its simulated D* >>>>>>>>>>>>> *would never stop running unless aborted* >>>>>>>>>>>>> by a hypothetical instance of itself that never aborts. >>>>>>>>>>>> H does stop running when simulated without aborting, because it >>>>>>>>>>>> aborts. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> H is required to report on the behavior of D in the case where a >>>>>>>>>>> hypothetical instance of itself never aborts its simulated D. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> When the hypothetical H never aborts its simulated D then: >>>>>>>>>>> (a) Simulated D  NEVER HALTS (b) Executed D() NEVER HALTS (c) >>>>>>>>>>> Executed H() NEVER HALTS (d) Everything that H calls NEVER HALTS >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You forgot (e) H does not report >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> HHH is required to report, that is why it must always report on >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> behavior of the hypothetical H/D pair and not the actual >>>>>>>>> behavior of >>>>>>>>> the actual H/D pair for every non-terminating input. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Every decider is required to report. But your (c) above prevents >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> hypothetical H from reporting. Therefore the hypothetical H is >>>>>>>> not a >>>>>>>> decider. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> I wish that people would pay attention. >>>>>>> People only glance at a couple of words that I say then artificially >>>>>>> contrive a fake rebuttal. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *We are ONLY measuring HHH/DDD against this criteria* >>>>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> We use the same criteria. We see that there is no correct >>>>>> simulation and >>>>>> that H does not correctly determine that its simulated D would never >>>>>> stop running. In fact the input specified to H contains code to >>>>>> abort, >>>>>> so a simulation of this input without abort would lead to a natural >>>>>> halt. >>>>>> >>>>>> So, because the criteria are not met, we see that Sipser agreed to a >>>>>> vacuous statement. >>>>>> >>>>>> But you do not pay attention to what is said, because you stay in >>>>>> rebuttal mode and, after seeing just a few words, keep repeating >>>>>> statements that are proven to be irrelevant, without even touching >>>>>> the >>>>>> fact that you are proven to be irrelevant. >>>>> >>>>> The halting problem is defined in terms of UTMs with infinite tape so >>>> >>>> It usually isn't. There are many variants of the problem but if you >>>> have an oracle for one of the you can solve them all. Usually an UTM >>>> is not mentioned in the problem statement. The tape is potentially >>>> infinite but one execution of a decider never uses more than a finite >>>> segment of the tape. >>>> >>> >>> I think that I am the original inventor of >>> the notion of simulating halt decider as it >>> pertains to the halting problem proofs. >>> >>> Computer Science professor Eric Hehner PhD >>> was the first one that noticed this: >>> >>> *Problems with the Halting Problem* >>>  From a programmer's point of view, if we apply >>> an interpreter to a program text that includes >>> a call to that same interpreter with that same >>> text as argument, then we have an infinite loop. >>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf >>> >>> Professor Hehner did not notice that the above >>> could be used to create a simulating halt decider >>> that rejects the conventional HP counter-example >>> input as non-halting. >> >> It can't. A decider, unlike a simulator, cannot be infinitely looping. >> > > void Infinite_Loop() > { >   HERE: goto HERE; >   return; > } > > _Infinite_Loop() > [0000212e] 55             push ebp > [0000212f] 8bec           mov ebp,esp > [00002131] ebfe           jmp 00002131 > [00002133] 5d             pop ebp > [00002134] c3             ret > Size in bytes:(0007) [00002134] > > In other words (even though Mike proved otherwise) > No one and nothing can possibly know that an infinite > loop will never terminate until they wait until > the end of time and it didn't stop running yet. > > Why the Hell are you trying to get away with something > so moronically stupid? > ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========