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

On 2025-05-17 18:45:18 +0000, olcott said:

On 5/17/2025 4:03 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 17.mei.2025 om 05:08 schreef olcott:

On 5/16/2025 9:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/16/25 8:49 PM, olcott wrote:

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.
 

 What makes you think I haven't.
 

 You haven't what?
 

And, since DDD needs to be a PROGRAM to do any of this, as non-leaf functions can't be correctly emulated, that DDD DOES include the code of the HHH it was built for, which is the HHH that aborts and returns 0.
 

 It is the job of HHH to determine whether or not its
input *WOULD NEVER STOP RUNNING UNLESS ABORTED*

 No, it is the task of HHH to determine whether *this* input, that includes Halt7.c and which does specify a conditional abort, halts.

 I am only asking DOES HHH meet the above spec?
You keep changing the subject away from this.

The answer is that HHH does not meet the spec Sipser agreed to
because the last condition is not met.
It seems that you don't understand "would" and counter-vactuals. Other
postings indicate that your understanding of modal auxiliaries is
defective.
--
Mikko