Sujet : Mike Terry Proves --- How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 16. May 2025, 15:33:53
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <1007icj$3qb7l$1@dont-email.me>
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
Mike does not agree that HHH(DD) gets the correct
answer. He does agree that an HHH derived from the
exact meaning of these words is correct:
<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:
> There is a natural (and correct) statement that Sipser
> is far more likely (I'd say) to have agreed to.
>
> First you should understand the basic idea behind a
> "Simulating Halt Decider" (*SHD*) that /partially/
> simulates its input, while observing each simulation
> step looking for certain halting/non-halting patterns
> in the simulation. A simple (working) example here
> is an input which goes into a tight loop.
(Mike says much more about this)
*Click here to get the whole article*
https://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3C1003cu5%242p3g1%241%40dont-email.me%3E Message-ID: <
1003cu5$2p3g1$1@dont-email.me>
-- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Geniushits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer