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

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?