Re: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways

On 6/7/24 10:09 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/7/2024 1:22 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-06 15:18:21 +0000, olcott said:

>
*Here is that problem statement*
Prove that sum(3,4) is incorrect on the basis that
sum(3,4) cannot and does not provide the sum of 5 + 6.

>
That problem statement does not restrict what another
problem statement may specify.
>

 It is an analogy.
 All halt deciders are only allowed to report on the actual
behavior of their actual input.

Right, which is DEFINED to be the behavior of the machine that the input describes.

 I have proven right here that the actual behavior of the actual
input is that it remains stuck in recursive simulation.

Nope.

 Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH
such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe]

Why, the two are not equivalent, unless HH doesn't ever abort, and then it isn't a decider.
As has been pointed out, partial simulation not reaching a final state doesn't say anything about the input not halting.
You also seem to forget that to ask what H does, H is at that point a SPECIFIC machine, as only machines have "behavior", not sets of machines. (We might be able to find the common behaviors of the set, after we establish the behavior of the individual machines in the set).

 _DD()
[00001e12] 55         push ebp
[00001e13] 8bec       mov  ebp,esp
[00001e15] 51         push ecx
[00001e16] 8b4508     mov  eax,[ebp+08]
[00001e19] 50         push eax      ; push DD
[00001e1a] 8b4d08     mov  ecx,[ebp+08]
[00001e1d] 51         push ecx      ; push DD
[00001e1e] e85ff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH
 I proved that I am correct and no one even looks
at this proof, that is NOT AN HONEST DIALOGUE.

Nope, you proved you don't know what you are talking about, and that you don't know how to actually present a proof.

 The above proof proves that DD is correctly simulated by HH
and DD simulated by HH DOES MEET the Sipser approve criteria.

And were is the "Proof" per the ruls of a formal system.
What well establish facts were you basing your logic on. What trurh preserving operations did you apply to those well establish facts?
YOu have made a argument, as done in more abstract philosophy of you claims, which just isn't a proof. Probably because you just don't understand what PROOF actually means.

 <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 words10/13/2022>

And to Professor Sipser, "Correct" as in Correct Simulation, means a simulation that carries all the way to the final state and reveals the actual behavior of the machine whose description is being simulated. Trying to apply ANY different meaning just shows you to be a deceptive liar, (which you do).
THIS H (and that is the only machine that is H her) does NOT correctly simulate its input, since it WILL abort it, so that clause can not apply, H doesn't even correctly predict what an actual correct simulation (even if it doesn't do it) does, so you can't even generalize the statement,
Ultimately, your logic fails, because you change the input with slight of hand when you try to evaluate different Hs, which breaks your logic, as the question is about THIS input, not some non-input that is just a chameleon.

 Professor Sipser <is> the author of the best selling theory of
computation textbook.
 *Introduction to the Theory of Computation, by Michael Sipser*
https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation-Michael-Sipser/dp/113318779X/