Re: Ben thinks processor Sipser is wrong

On 7/4/24 2:02 PM, olcott wrote:

<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>
 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.

...

But H determines (correctly) that D would not halt if it were not
halted.  That much is a truism.

 Ben clearly agrees that the above criteria have been met,
yet feels that professor Sipser was tricked into agreeing
that this means that:
     H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
     specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
 I spent two years deriving those words that Professor Sipser
agreed with. It seems to me that every software engineer would
agree that the second part is logically entailed by the first part.
 

You mean you WASTED two years and set a trap for your self that you fell into.
The problem is that Ben is adopting your definitions that professor Sipser is not using.
In particular, for professor Sipser, D must be a program (a turing machine equivalent) but I think Ben is seeing that you H is being defined to take a TEMPLATE instead of a program.
Another way to look at thins is that H and P are entertwined entities and not two seperate programs in the system Ben was commenting about.
For Professor Sipser, H and D are REQUIRED to be independent entities, since that is what Computation Theory deals with.
So, the two problems are in completely different domains.