Sujet : Re: Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof
De : mikko.levanto (at) *nospam* iki.fi (Mikko)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 17. Sep 2024, 07:51:37
Autres entêtes
Organisation : -
Message-ID : <vcb8tp$3cvpf$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3
User-Agent : Unison/2.2
On 2024-09-16 12:03:12 +0000, olcott said:
On 9/16/2024 3:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-09-15 14:23:38 +0000, olcott said:
Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof
D(D) correctly reports its own halt status
https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof
That article does not prove its claim and therefore does not constiture
a refutation of anything.
The text agreed by Sipser is shown twice: first in the beginnig of
the article and again in the beginnig of the Appendix.
There are two execution traces: one on pare 3, another in the Appendix.
The relation between them is not explained. More generally, the roloe
or the purpose of the Appendix is not clear.
You have to actually carefully study the words.
Which words?
There are not two execution traces.
One shows the execution trace of D emulated by H:
The essence of the halt status decision.
The other one shows the trace of the whole
program including the trace of D emulated by H.
That is not said in the Appendix.
-- Mikko
Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof
Re: Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof