Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met

On 5/14/2025 11:44 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/14/2025 6:22 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/13/25 9:54 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/13/2025 2:41 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-05-12 18:17:37 +0000, olcott said:
>

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:
>
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim 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

>
This specifies two requirements:
1. H correctly simulates that part of the behaviour of D that starts
from the start of the execution and does not end before the second
requirement is satisfied.
2. H correctly determines that unsimulated part of the behaviour is
infinitely long.
>
The second reuirement is not satisfied when HHH analyses the above
DD.
>

>
In other words you believe that DD will halt
on its own without ever being aborted by HHH.
That is counter-factual.
>
_DD()
[00002133] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002134] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002136] 51         push ecx      ; make space for local
[00002137] 6833210000 push 00002133 ; push DD
[0000213c] e882f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DD)
...
>
HHH determines that DD correctly simulated by
HHH keeps calling HHH(DD) until HHH aborts this
simulation and rejects DD.
>

>
But that wasn't the criteria.
>
It was DD correctly simulated PERIOD.
>

 THERE IS NO PERIOD.
THE SPEC REQUIRES A PARTIAL SIMULATION OF SOME INPUTS.

Simulation is not a requirement, merely an implementation detail. Mapping the halting function is the requirement:
Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of instructions) X described as <X> with input Y:
A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes the following mapping:
(<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly
(<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed directly

 <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim 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
      *correctly simulates its input D until*
 

1 - You *again* lie by implying Siper agrees with your meaning of the above when it has been clearly proven that he did not.
2 - You HHH doesn't event meet the prerequisites of the above spec because halt deciders work with algorithms and you've admitted that your HHH does not
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:
 >>>>>> On 5/13/2025 6:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
 >>>>>>> On 5/13/25 12:52 AM, olcott wrote:
 >>>>>>>> *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.