Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Mike's key mistake

On 5/16/2025 7:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/16/25 6:39 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/16/2025 5:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/16/25 4:29 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/16/2025 3:06 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 16.mei.2025 om 07:29 schreef olcott:

*Not at all. I am following these exact words*
<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 5/14/2025 7:36 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
Shows exactly how to implement those words to implement
a correct Simulating Termination Analyzer. Mike provides
a complete example of how this works.
>
>

>
>
Sipser agreed to a vacuous statement, because the condition 'correctly simulates' was not met.

>
And by this you mean that when the spec requires
a partial simulation
>
*until H correctly determines that its simulated D*
*would never stop running unless aborted*
>
You "interpret" this to mean that it must
infinitely simulate non-terminating inputs.

>
Which means, as I explained else, if H, after doing a partial simulation, can determine that a COMPLETE simulation of this exact input would be non-halting, it can abort.
>

>
Not quite. One key detail is missing.
*H correctly determines that its simulated D*
*would never stop running unless aborted*
>
Is referring to what the behavior of D would be
(in the hypothetical case) where this very same
H never aborted.

 Nope, since D must stay D, and D must be a fully encoded program and thus doesn't change when you make the hypothetical H.
 

*Click here to get the whole article*
https://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3C1003cu5%242p3g1%241%40dont-email.me%3E Mike perfectly explains all of this with a concrete
example. In this case H determines that its infinite
loop input would never stop running unless aborted
so it aborts it and correctly rejects it.
H is not being asked what is the behavior of this
infinite loop after H aborts it. It is being asked
what its behavior would be if H never aborted it.
HHH is not being asked what is the behavior of
DDD after HHH aborts it. It is being asked
what its behavior would be if HHH never aborted it.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer