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

On 5/12/2025 7:53 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/12/2025 6:40 PM, dbush wrote:

On 5/12/2025 7:36 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/12/2025 6:24 PM, dbush wrote:

On 5/12/2025 6:41 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/12/2025 5:30 PM, dbush wrote:

On 5/12/2025 6:28 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/12/2025 4:54 PM, dbush wrote:

On 5/12/2025 5:46 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/12/2025 4:39 PM, dbush wrote:

On 5/12/2025 5:12 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/12/2025 3:29 PM, dbush wrote:

On 5/12/2025 4:17 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/12/2025 2:53 PM, dbush wrote:

On 5/12/2025 2:27 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/12/2025 1:20 PM, dbush wrote:

On 5/12/2025 2:17 PM, olcott wrote:

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
>
     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>
>

>
Which is not what you thought he agreed to:
>
>
On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 2:41:27 PM UTC-5, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
 > I exchanged emails with him about this. He does not agree with anything
 > substantive that PO has written. I won't quote him, as I don't have
 > permission, but he was, let's say... forthright, in his reply to me.
>

>
*Ben already acknowledged that the requirements have been met*
>
On 10/17/2022 10:23 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
 > ...D(D) would not halt unless H stops the simulation.
 > H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion (in this one case)...
>
>

>
Which is not what Sipser agreed to, as stated above.
>
He agreed, as all others would, that H must determine if UTM(D) halts.

>
That is not what Ben's words mean.
>
On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
 > I don't think that is the shell game. PO really /has/ an H
 > (it's trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines
 > that P(P) *would* never stop running *unless* aborted.
>
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
     H correctly determines that its simulated D
     would never stop running unless aborted...
>
*its simulated D*
>

>
Which Sipser (and everyone else) takes to mean UTM(D),

>
*its simulated D* cannot be *correctly* understood
to mean a D simulated by anything else other than
a hypothetical H that never aborts.

>
False.  It cannot be *correctly* understood to be anything else but the algorithm D simulated completely by a UTM,

>
An H that never aborts <is> a UTM.

>
In which case you don't have algorithm D.  You instead have algorithm Dn.
>

>
*its simulated D would never stop running unless aborted*
can only mean one thing.

>
And what it means is changing the input.
>
Changing the input is not allowed.

>
So professor Sisper was wrong?
>

>
He didn't agree to what you think he did:
>
On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 2:41:27 PM UTC-5, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
 > I exchanged emails with him about this. He does not agree with anything
 > substantive that PO has written. I won't quote him, as I don't have
 > permission, but he was, let's say... forthright, in his reply to me.
>
>
On 8/23/2024 5:07 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
 > I suspect he was tricked because PO used H and D as the names without
 > making it clear that D was constructed from H in the usual way (Sipser
 > uses H and D in at least one of his proofs).  Of course, he is clued in
 > enough know that, if D is indeed constructed from H like that, the
 > "minor remark" becomes true by being a hypothetical: if the moon is made
 > of cheese, the Martians can look forward to a fine fondue.  But,
 > personally, I think the professor is more straight talking than that,
 > and he simply took as a method that can work for some inputs.  That's
 > the only way is could be seen as a "minor remark" with being accused of
 > being disingenuous.
>
On 8/23/2024 9:10 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
 > So that PO will have no cause to quote me as supporting his case: what
 > Sipser understood he was agreeing to was NOT what PO interprets it as
 > meaning.  Sipser would not agree that the conclusion applies in PO's
 > HHH(DDD) scenario, where DDD halts.
>

>
This can only have one meaning:
*its simulated D would never stop running unless aborted*

>
And that meaning is "changing the input"
>
Changing the input is not allowed.

 Simulating Termination analyzers cannot possibly report
on the actual behavior of non-terminating inputs
because this would cause themselves to never terminate.
 They must always hypothesize what the behavior of the
input would be if they themselves never aborted.
 

False.  They must always hypothesize what the behavior of algorithm described by the input would be if it was executed directly, as per the requirements:
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