Re: Mike Terry Proves --- How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met

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.
>
<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
>
     H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
     specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 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* ..".
He used to just say something like "..on a different HHH..".  That allowed him to deceive himself into thinking that only the decider was being changed.  The fact that he has started using the wording "HHH/DDD pair" suggests he has finally twigged that he is indeed changing the input - although people were telling him that right from the beginning.
As with all his mistakes that he bumps up against, rather than analysing where he went wrong, he simply doubles down and just makes up whatever new (baseless) justifications are needed for him to maintain his delusions.  In the case of changing the input, he quietly sneaks in a couple of extra words "DDD/  *HHH pair*" as though nothing significant has changed - and the new wording means it is right to change the input because we have to maintain the HHH/DDD Linz relationship (or whatever).
His big problem here is
a) that it's OBVIOUSLY wrong to change the input.  Nobody, anywhere, is ever going to let PO get away with that, except perhaps Mr.Flibble (not sure on that one).
Then again, it is OBVIOUSLY wrong to report non-halting for a computation that halts, so PO has been here before!
b) Sipser's wording makes no mention of such a bizarre idea.  For whatever reason, PO seems to put much weight recently on what Sipser said.  (And what I said, what Ben has said and so on.)  For someone who makes a big thing about everyone else being "learned by rote" people who can't think for themselves, that has to be seen as somewhat hypocritical!  Anyway, he can't claim his favourite Sipser quote /tells/ him to change the input.
Mike.