Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Mike my best reviewer

On 5/17/25 11:31 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/17/2025 9:27 AM, Mike Terry wrote:

On 17/05/2025 09:55, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-05-16 14:47:39 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 5/16/2025 4:26 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-05-15 00:36:21 +0000, Mike Terry said:
>

On 14/05/2025 22:31, Keith Thompson wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> writes:

On 5/14/2025 3:51 PM, dbush wrote:

On 5/14/2025 11:45 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/14/2025 6:20 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

>
And since the DD that HHH is simulating WILL HALT when fully
simulated (an action that HHH doesn't do)

>
*NOT IN THE ACTUAL SPEC*
<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
>

That Sipser didn't agree what you think the above means:
>

>
If that was actually true then you could provide an
alternative meaning for the exact words stated above.
>
I keep challenging you to provide this alternative
meaning and you dodge because you know that you are
lying about there being any alternative meaning
FOR THE EXACT WORDS LISTED ABOVE.

>
No alternative meaning is needed, just a correct interpretation of the
words (which appear to be incomplete).
>
The quoted sentence is cut off, something that I suspect you didn't
notice.  Here's the full quotation from a previous article:
>

<Sipser approved abstract>
MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that the following verbatim
paragraph is correct (he has not agreed to anything else in this
paper):
>
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.
</Sipser approved abstract>

>
**If** H correctly simulates its input in the manner you claim,
**then** H can correctly report the halting status of D.  (That's a
paraphrase that probably doesn't capture the full meaning; the full
**quotation is above.)
>
To put it another way, If H correctly simulated its input in
the manner you claim, then H could correctly report the halting
status of D.
>
I'm not surprised that Sipser would agree to that.  The problem is
that it's a conditional statement whose premise is impossible.
>
If an equilateral triangle had four sides, then each of its four
vertices would be 90 degrees.  That doesn't actually mean that
there exists an equilateral triangle with four 90-degree vertices,
and in fact no such triangle exists.  Similarly, *if* a general
halt decider existed, then there are a lot of things we could say
about it -- but no general halt decider can exist.
>
I'm not quite 100% confident in my reasoning here.  I invite any
actual experts in computational theory (not you, PO) to criticize
what I've written.

>
I doubt that Sipser would be using your interpretation, relying on a false premise as a clever kind of logical loop-hole to basically fob someone off.

>
The details of H are not known to Sipser, so he can't know whether a
premise is false. It is possible that some simulating partial decider
correctly simulates a part of the behaviour of some D and correctly
determines that the unsimulated part of the behaviour never halts;
for example, if the unsimulated part is a trivial eternal loop. That
one premise is false about HHH with DDD is a part of what was asked.

>
Mike explains all of the details of exactly how a
correct Simulating Halt Decider is derived from
the exact meaning of the words that professor Sipser
agreed to IN THE PART THAT YOU IGNORED

>
No, he does not. He does not even believe that it is possible to derive
a correct Simulating Halt Decider form the exact meaning of any words.
>

>
That's correct.
>
We could build a correct /partial/ SHD though, which I explained.  The idea behind an PSHD is ok, and a class of HP inputs could be correctly decided with a PSHD.  Obviously a PSHD H could not decide its corresponding H^ input, as the Linz HP proof implies.  Since PO's HHH / does/ decide its corresponding DD (incorrectly), it is not a PSHD, since PSHDs are not allowed to decide incorrectly.  [A correctly coded PSHD HHH would never halt when given its (HHH^,HHH^) input.
>
PO's problem is that he misunderstands the entire context of Sipser's words.  Sipser's words concern how a PSHD H could decide some FIXED INPUT D it has been given.

>
Mike's reviews of my work are at least ten-fold better
than the next best reviewer. Mike is one of the few
people here that really wants an honest dialogue. He
carefully examined my code and has a nearly perfect
understanding.

 And he still points out how you are wrong.
 

>
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
>
Most everyone else only seems to care about rebuttal
at the expense of truth. Keith and Ben also seem to
care about truth.

 No, rebuttal for the SAKE of truth.
 

>
<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

 Right, ans since your HHH and DDD are not programs