Re: Simulating termination analyzers by dummies --- criteria is met

On 6/22/2024 9:20 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/22/24 10:11 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/22/2024 8:27 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/22/24 9:04 AM, olcott wrote:

>
https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation-Michael-Sipser/dp/113318779X/
>
<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>

>
And, as I remember, he also verified that he disagrees with your definition of correct simulation.
>

>
*Ben also verified that the criteria have been met*
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.

>
Right, Ben was willing to do what I am not that you can prove that, by your definition, H can show that it "must" abort its simulation or the input will run forever.
>
But, just like me, he also agrees that this is NOT the defintion of Halting, so H is just shown to be a correct (partial) POOP decider but ot a Halt Decider, not even for that one input.
>

>
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.
 >
 > He knows and accepts that P(P) actually does stop. The
 > wrong answer is justified by what would happen if H
 > (and hence a different P) where not what they actually are.
 >
*Ben agrees that the criteria is met for the input*
>
Computable functions are the formalized analogue of the
intuitive notion of algorithms, in the sense that a function
is computable if there exists an algorithm that can do the
job of the function, i.e. *given an input of the function*
*domain it can return the corresponding output*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function
>
*Ben disagrees that the criteria is met for the non-input*
Yet no one here can stay focused on the fact that non-inputs
*DO NOT COUNT*

 No, you don't understand the words he is using because you have distroted the meaning of too many words.
 He is agreeing that H can correctly decide the POOP criteria, the it can

The criteria that professor Sipser agreed is correct
and agreed that I can quote his agreement.

say that "no H can correctly simulate that input to a final state", but he does NOT agree that it means it doesn't HALT,

He also agreed that
 >>>>    H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
 >>>>    specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
*So yet again you try to get away with denying verified facts*
and are busted.

because that isn't the meaning of Halting, and your definition of Correct Simulation isn't what Professor Sipser was using, so you can't use that.
 So, you are just stuck in your lies.
 

>
void DDD()
{
   HHH0(DDD);
}
>
int main()
{
   Output("Input_Halts = ", HHH0(DDD));
   Output("Input_Halts = ", HHH1(DDD));
}
>
It is a verified fact that the behavior that finite string DDD
presents to HH0 is that when DDD correctly simulated by HH0
calls HH0(DDD) that this call DOES NOT RETURN.
>
It is a verified fact that the behavior that finite string DDD
presents to HH1 is that when DDD correctly simulated by HH1
calls HH0(DDD) that this call DOES RETURN.
>
*I don't get why people here insist on lying about verified facts*
>
>

  The problem is that the "behavior" that the finite string DDD presents to HH0, is DEFINED by the problem.

*Not not at all, not in the least little bit*
No textbook is allowed to override and supersede
the semantics of the x86 programming language.
Unlike you this does seem to be an honest mistake
on their part.

 And if that problem is the Halting Problem, that behavior is the behavior of the machine the input represents.

Some abstract idea that contradicts the semantics of the x86
programming language IS WRONG.
I have had enough of your willful deception for one post.

If HH0 treats the input as having a different behavior, then HH0 just isn't a Halting Decider, but something else.
 If HH0 is supposed to be a Halting decider, but uses a method that makes it see something other than that behavior, then it is just an incorrect Halting Decider, and its algorithm just creates an incorrect recreation of the property of the input it is supposed to be working on.
  A bit of a side note, the actual "Input" to HH0, is a pointer to memory, and as such it passes a reference to ALL of memory considering the starting point to be that address, so your "Input" isn't actually the few bytes of DDD, but ALL of memory and a starting point. If you actually mean that the input is just those few bytes pointed to by the address, then the input is improperly formed and is NOT a proper representation of the input machine, becuase it is incomplete.
 The fact you don't understand this, seems to imply you are lacking the basic knowledge to be talking about this sort of thing.
 

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer